J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I rise to express my strong support for the amendment to strike section 821, the Federal Prison Industries provision of the Defense Authorization Act. I commend Senator Gramm for his leadership and excellent remarks today on this critical issue. FPI or UNICOR is an essential correctional program that keeps thousands of prisoners working every day without any cost to taxpayers. It helps maintain prison safety and security because inmates that are productively occupied are less likely to be involved in mischief and violence. FPI has existed since the 1930s, but it has never been more important than it is today in these times of rising prison populations. Just on the Federal level, the prison population today is twice what it was in the late 1980s. While the number of inmates in State prisons may be leveling off now, the number of Federal prisoners is continuing to rise and is expected to expand by 40 percent in the next seven years. The Congress is approving 28 more medium or high-security prisons to accommodate this continuing increase, which is needed to keep our streets safe and keep the crime rate declining. It is prisons of this type that most need the work programs that FPI provides. Moreover, Prison Industries helps provide prisoners a future when they are released. The program teaches inmates meaningful job skills that they can use when they return to society, and has proven to be the most successful government initiative in helping prevent prisoners from returning to a life of crime. It is an extremely popular work program, through which inmates volunteer to participate. In fact, the prisons have long waiting lists for inmates to be involved. It is worth repeating that FPI requires no government funding and sustains itself as a government corporation. We should not destroy what keeps the growing correctional population occupied in a way that benefits prisoners and protects the prisons and our communities. Yet, Section 821 of the Defense authorization bill could do just that. It would essentially exclude the Defense Department from FPI and endanger this program and its essential mission. The Defense Department is critical to FPI's continued success. It is one of FPI's most important customers, constituting about 60 percent of FPI sales. Also, FPI is an important part of the military supply network. DOD and FPI have a good working relationship, and there is no basis for us to create a special carve out of DOD from FPI's very long- standing Federal Government preference in procurement. Section 821 would eliminate the preference that FPI has over the private sector for sales less than $2,500, for products that are part of a national security system, or for products that are components of items that FPI does not sell. This would essentially exclude Defense from the mandatory source because the great majority of DOD orders fit into one of these three categories. In fact, for any remaining purchases, DOD would be required to conduct ``market research'' before making purchases. This provision is simply unworkable in practice and, considering that DOD constitutes about 60 percent of FPI sales, would severely harm FPI, and even endanger the program. The arguments that opponents of Prison Industries are making are certainly not new. These issues were raised by Senator Levin years ago in a previous Defense authorization bill, and the Congress required the Defense Department and the Justice Department to complete a major study regarding their relationship. The results of that joint study were released in 1999, and show that the changes we are considering today are not warranted. The study found that they have a beneficial and cooperative relationship, and the suggestions it made for improvement have been implemented. It specifically concluded that no statutory changes in the procurement process are warranted, which the provision we are considering today entirely disregards. Moreover, the current Bush administration opposes this type of piecemeal effort to harm FPI, just as the Clinton administration and others did in the past. The Bush administration has expressed great concern about the effect that Section 821 could have on the safe and effective administration of Federal prisons. This concern is entirely appropriate. The fact is that Section 821 would eliminate many FPI jobs and create problems for the safe and efficient operation of Federal prisons. Also, many opportunities for inmates to earn marketable job skills would be lost or have to be subsidized with scarce Government funds. Given the severe budget constraints and demands for Federal money caused by the September 11 terrorist attacks, this is definitely not the time to be creating an additional need for Federal dollars. The operation of Federal prisons is a matter within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, and that committee is the appropriate place to consider matters related to FPI. In fact, reform legislation that we should consider in the Judiciary Committee is currently pending there. I agree that it is time to move away from the mandatory source preference that FPI has in the Federal market. However, we must do so in a reasoned, comprehensive way that creates more opportunities, not less. Senator Hatch and I have introduced a bill that is pending in the Judiciary Committee which would eliminate the mandatory source in a way that would not endanger FPI. Our legislation, S. 1228, would give private businesses the opportunity to partner with FPI to make products in the private sector. Most importantly, it would permit prisoners to make products for private companies that otherwise would be made overseas, such as electronic toys and televisions. This has the potential to return jobs to America that have been lost to foreign labor. FPI already purchases over $400 million per year in raw materials and equipment from United States companies, most of which comes from small businesses. This bill would expand those opportunities for private industry. Also, under S. 1228, when inmates made products in the domestic market, they would earn comparable locality wages. Additional money that they earned would be used to pay restitution, child support, and a portion of their room and board costs. This would be in addition to the millions of dollars that FPI inmates already contribute annually to their families and to crime victims. I think we should make FPI a partner with the private sector as part of a comprehensive solution to this long-standing issue. Any argument about forced labor, whether in FPI today or in this bill, has absolutely no merit. FPI is a program that inmates volunteer to participate in, and S. 1228 would require that participation be voluntary. Also, the facilities would comply with standards established by OSHA, the International Labor Organization, and the American Correctional Association. I am prepared to work with all interested parties to help resolve this matter once and for all. However, the Defense Authorization Act is not the right place and section 821 is clearly not the right approach to reforming Prison Industries. With the recent terrorist attack, many want to limit the Defense authorization bill to our military and national security needs. This bill certainly should not be used to interfere in the orderly operation of Federal prisons. Thus, I encourage my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, at this tragic time in our Nation's history, it is time for the Senate to lay aside politics and focus on the needs of our country, especially those of the men and women of our military services. The National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2002 is the key legislation that this Senate will consider this year to provide critical funding and legislative authority to the Department of Defense so it can carry out its national security role. The bill also includes important provisions to improve the quality of life for our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. These men and women will be the spears in the fight to rid this world of the terrorist that threaten not only this great Nation, but all peace loving people throughout the world. The fact that we are considering this important legislation at this time is a reflection of the bipartisan effort to support this nation. I joined my Republican colleagues on the Armed Services Committee in voting against reporting out the Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2002. I would have joined my colleagues in voting against final passage of this bill if the onerous provision on the future course of the deployment of ballistic missile defenses had not been not struck from the bill. By removing the provisions that would have hindered the President's ability to deploy an effective National Missile Defense System, Chairman Levin has come a long way toward assuring passage of this important legislation and laid aside partisanship in favor of unity. I will support this important legislation in its current form, although I have significant reservations regarding the section 821 which severely restricts Federal Prison Industries' ability to sell to the Department of Defense. Since the Department is FPI's largest customer, my concern is that this provision would severely harm FPI and its essential mission in keeping inmates safely and productively occupied. FPI is an essential program that maintains prison safety and security. It keeps thousands of prisoners working and productively occupied, which helps prevent mischief and violence. Also, it is the most successful government program for teaching inmates job skills that they can use in the private sector when they are released. It does all of this without any cost to the taxpayers. Because of these concerns and the fact that this matter is under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, I will join any effort to strike this provision and am optimistic that it will not survive to see the light of day. Under the leadership of our new Chairman Senator Levin and the Ranking Member, Senator Warner, the Armed Services Committee included many provisions and funding items that the administration supports and will have a significant impact on readiness and quality of life. The bill provides $10.5 billion for military construction and family housing construction. It adds more than $232.0 million to increase the Basic Allowance for Housing to further reduce the out-of-pocket expenses housing costs for service members and their families. It adds more than $1.0 billion to the budget request to improve the readiness of U.S. forces. The bill also includes significant funding to improve the capability of our forces to meet the nontraditional threats that we will face in the coming years. These threats, as so tragically evidenced on September 11, are not only focused on our Armed Forces, but the heart and soul of our nation, its citizens. I am especially pleased that this bill contains significant funding levels to support the operations, especially environmental clean-up, at the Savannah River Site in my home State. Additionally, the bill includes the bill makes a strong statement, which was inserted at my request, regarding plutonium disposition. I believe that now more than ever we must eliminate the threat that this material pose. I strongly urge the Department of Energy to follow the Record of Decision on plutonium disposition and build the MOX fuel fabrication plant otherwise the Savannah River Site may be forced to store plutonium indefinitely, which is an unacceptable situation. Although this bill came to the floor under a shadow, I urge the Senate to unite and put aside the partisan interest for the sake of the Nation and, more importantly, for the sake of the men and women who may soon be thrust into harms way.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today, I am offering an amendment to the national Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2002 that would correct the longstanding injustice to the widows or widowers of our military retirees. The proposed legislation, which reflects the language of S. 145 which I introduced on January 23, 2001, would immediately increase for surviving spouses over the age 62 the minimum survivor Benefit Plan, SBP, annuity from 35 percent to 40 percent of the SBP covered retired pay. The bill would provide a further increase to 45 percent of covered retired pay as of October 1, 2004, and to 55 percent as of September 2011. As I outlined in my many statements in support of this important legislation the Survivor Benefit Plan advertises, that if the service member elects to join the plan, his survivor will receive 55 percent of the member's retirement pay. Unfortunately, that is not so. The reason that they do not receive the 55 percent of retired pay is that current law mandates that at age 62 this amount be reduced either by the amount of the survivor's Social Security benefit or to 35 percent of the SBP. This law is especially irksome to those retirees who joined the plan when it was first offered in 1972. These service members were never informed of the age-62 reduction until they had made an irrevocable decision to participate. Many retirees and their spouses, as our constituent mail attests, believed their premium payments would guarantee 55 percent of retired pay for the life of the survivor. It is not hard to imagine the shock and financial disadvantage these men and women who so loyally served the Nation for many years experience when they learn of the annuity reduction. Uniformed services retirees pay too much for the available SBP benefit both, compared to what we promised and what we offer other Federal retirees. When the Survivor Benefit Plan was enacted in 1972, the Congress intended that the government would pay 40 percent of the cost to parallel the government subsidy of the Federal civilian survivor benefit plan. That was short-lived. Over time, the government's cost sharing has declined to about 26 percent. In other words, the retiree's premiums now cover 74 percent of expected long- term program costs versus the intended 60 percent. Contrast this with the Federal civilian SBP, which has a 42-percent subsidy for those personnel under the Federal Employees Retirement System and a 50- percent subsidy for those under the Civil Service Retirement System. Further, Federal civilian survivors receive 50 percent of retired pay with no offset at age 62. Although Federal civilian premiums are 10 percent retired pay compared to 6.5 percent for military retirees, the difference in the percent of contribution is offset by the fact that our service personnel retire at a much younger age than the civil servant and, therefore pay premiums much longer than the Federal civilian retiree. Although the House conferees thwarted my previous efforts to enact this legislation into law, I am ever optimistic that this year we will prevail. I base my optimism on the fact that the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 included a sense of the Congress on increasing Survivor Benefit Plan annuities for surviving spouses age 62 or older. The sense of the Congress reflects the concern addressed by the legislation I am introducing again today. Since I introduced S. 145, 32 of my colleagues joined as cosponsors to the bill. I hope my colleagues will speak in support of this important legislation and the Senate will adopt this amendment.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, last month, the U.S. Congress lost one of the finest public servants I have had the honor to know. As my colleagues may know, Congressman Floyd Spence, who represented South Carolina's 2nd District, passed away on August 16, 2001. Floyd Spence may no longer walk the halls of Congress, but the countless contributions he made over the last three decades will continue to influence South Carolina and this great Nation. Floyd was a humble public servant who was proud of his modest background, often introducing himself as ``Floyd Spence, dirt farmer.'' He was a principled man who could disarm anyone with his friendly disposition and his distinct chuckle. It was difficult, if not impossible, for anyone to dislike Floyd. Too often we take life for granted, but not Floyd Spence. As a beneficiary of two organ transplants, he knew too well he had been given not just a second, but a third change at life. As a result, Floyd lived life to the fullest, dedicating it to the service of others and his Nation. Floyd's generosity was demonstrated by his willingness to lend an ear to those who faced the frightening prospect of a transplant, or the even scarier possibility of not receiving an organ in time. Having faced these fears himself, he welcomed the opportunity to comfort individuals from across the United States who called to ask him about his own experience. My friend, ever the Southern gentleman, leaves behind a legacy of dedicated public service. For almost fifty years he loyally served the people of South Carolina. Floyd was also an outspoken advocate for our Armed Services and had served as Chairman for the House Armed Services Committee. As a retired Naval Reserve Officer, he recognized the importance of a strong military and worked tirelessly to ensure that the needs of our Armed Services were addressed. He was a true patriot, a dedicated public servant, and he will be greatly missed by all who knew him. Floyd is an inspiration to all, and my heartfelt sympathy goes out to his devoted wife Debbie, and his fine sons, David, Zach, Ben, and Caldwell, and to his dedicated staff.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to submit a Senate Resolution designating the week beginning September 16, 2001, as ``National Historically Black Colleges and Universities Week.'' It is my privilege to sponsor this legislation, honoring the Historically Black Colleges of our Country, for the sixteenth time. Thousands of young Americans have received quality educations at the 105 Historically Black Colleges and Universities in this Country. These institutions have a long and distinguished history of providing the training necessary for participation in a rapidly changing society. I am pleased that eight of the 105 Historically Black Colleges and Universities are located in my State of South Carolina. Historically Black Colleges offer our citizens a variety of curricula and programs through which young people develop skills and talents, thereby expanding opportunities for continued social progress. Studies have shown that Historically Black Colleges and Universities have graduated the majority of black professionals in the Nation. The adoption of this resolution will affirm the United States' support for these institutions and the critical contributions of their alumni to our society.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in support of the resolution condemning yesterday's terrorist attacks. These assaults were a strike not only against America, but against freedom itself. My deepest condolences go out to those who lost loved ones during this tragedy, and also to those rescue workers who risked, and many times lost, their lives in an effort to save the victims of this horrific event. Even as we pause to pray for the victims and their families, we promise to be unwavering in our pursuit of the cowards responsible for these acts. It is a day we will never forget, but a day that only strengthens our resolve to protect the freedoms that are the cornerstone of our society. Watching this tragedy unfold, I recalled the day when our sovereign country was violated by the attack on Pearl Harbor. Over the years, I hoped and prayed that our hallowed lands would never again be defiled, and now they have once again been attacked. This time, however, our enemies remain nameless. These cowardly acts of terrorism will not be tolerated, and those who are responsible for these atrocities will suffer the consequences of their actions. Let there be no mistake, we have faced adversity before, and the United States of America will once again prevail. If this assault was intended to weaken the American spirit, these cowards will be very disappointed. When speaking on the purpose and means of war, the military theorist Carl Clausewitz stated that the fighting forces of the enemy ``must be put in such a condition that they can no longer carry on the fight''. Mark my words, we stand united and prepared to use whatever means necessary to respond and destroy those responsible. The acts of heroism and generosity by Americans in New York City, Washington, D.C., and across the Nation has been extraordinary, but not surprising. It is in difficult times that we are fortified by unity, and this will be no exception. On December 8, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt addressed Congress in response to Pearl Harbor. His words then inspired our Nation to victory. Once again, his words ring true, ``With confidence in our armed forces--with the unbounding determination of our people-- we will gain the inevitable triumph--so help us God.''

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would help Federal law enforcement track down and apprehend dangerous fugitives who are roaming the streets of America. I am pleased to have as original cosponsors Senator Biden and Senator Hatch. Both of them are distinguished members of this Body with extensive knowledge in crime issues, and I greatly appreciate their support on this important legislation. Fugitives from justice pose a serious threat to public safety. These criminals are evading the criminal justice system with impunity, and many of them are committing more crimes while they are free. We should help law enforcement bring them to justice and prevent future crime. It has been estimated that fifty percent of the crime in America is committed by five percent of the offenders. It is these serious, repeat criminals, many of whom are fugitives, that law enforcement must address today. There are over 550,000 felony or other serious Federal and State fugitives listed in the National Crime Information Center database. The number has more than doubled since 1987, and is growing every year. This bill would respond to the growing fugitive threat by providing the Justice Department administrative subpoena authority for fugitives. Federal officers already have this crime-fighting tool in other areas, and this legislation would fill a serious gap that currently exists for fugitive investigations. Information such as telephone or apartment records may provide the missing link to track down a fugitive. Also, it can be critical to track down leads very quickly because fugitives are often transient and the trail can quickly become cold. The grand jury is routinely available to obtain information about the whereabouts of those who are suspected of committing crimes. Surprisingly, the same cannot be said for those who were caught but got away. The grand jury is generally not an option to get information about known fugitives who are evading justice. It is true that a Federal prosecutor can seek the approval of a judge for a administrative subpoena under the All Writs Act. However, it is a long, time-consuming process to get overworked federal judges with crowded dockets to act on these requests, especially if they are not rare. In any event, it may be too late by the time the court responds. Administrative subpoenas can prevent costly delays. Last year, we worked hard to give law enforcement tools to address the serious fugitive threat, holding hearings and moving important legislation. The Congress authorized $40 million over three years to create task forces led by the Marshals Service to apprehend dangerous fugitives. As part of this effort, the Senate passed administrative subpoena authority twice by unanimous consent last year. However, this authority was not included in the final legislation because it stalled in the House last year. I hope that, as we explain the need for this authority and how it is really a very narrow expansion beyond current law, we will receive widespread support in both Houses of Congress. Administrative subpoenas are not new to federal law enforcement. They have existed for years to help authorities solve various crimes, including drug offenses, child pornography, and even health care fraud. However, this bill places greater restrictions on the use of the subpoenas than currently exist in these other areas. These subpoenas could be used only to obtain documents and records, not testimony. None of us want a subpoena issued unless it is needed and fully complies with the law. This bill contains procedures for people to challenge the subpoena that they receive and have a judge review whether it should be issued. Judicial review is required in any case where the person requests it. The subpoena authority has no impact on the Fourth Amendment and its general prohibition on searches and seizures without a court-approved warrant. Courts have routinely upheld administrative subpoenas as entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment. Administrative subpoenas do not allow law enforcement to enter a home or business to conduct any search. They only allow the government to receive documentary information that they can show will help them find felons who are on the run. In summary, this legislation would help authorities get the information they need to find dangerous fugitives before it is too late. I am pleased that this proposal has the endorsement of law enforcement organizations, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association. I encourage my colleagues to stand up for law enforcement and support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would help Federal law enforcement track down and apprehend dangerous fugitives who are roaming the streets of America. I am pleased to have as original cosponsors Senator Biden and Senator Hatch. Both of them are distinguished members of this Body with extensive knowledge in crime issues, and I greatly appreciate their support on this important legislation. Fugitives from justice pose a serious threat to public safety. These criminals are evading the criminal justice system with impunity, and many of them are committing more crimes while they are free. We should help law enforcement bring them to justice and prevent future crime. It has been estimated that fifty percent of the crime in America is committed by five percent of the offenders. It is these serious, repeat criminals, many of whom are fugitives, that law enforcement must address today. There are over 550,000 felony or other serious Federal and State fugitives listed in the National Crime Information Center database. The number has more than doubled since 1987, and is growing every year. This bill would respond to the growing fugitive threat by providing the Justice Department administrative subpoena authority for fugitives. Federal officers already have this crime-fighting tool in other areas, and this legislation would fill a serious gap that currently exists for fugitive investigations. Information such as telephone or apartment records may provide the missing link to track down a fugitive. Also, it can be critical to track down leads very quickly because fugitives are often transient and the trail can quickly become cold. The grand jury is routinely available to obtain information about the whereabouts of those who are suspected of committing crimes. Surprisingly, the same cannot be said for those who were caught but got away. The grand jury is generally not an option to get information about known fugitives who are evading justice. It is true that a Federal prosecutor can seek the approval of a judge for a administrative subpoena under the All Writs Act. However, it is a long, time-consuming process to get overworked federal judges with crowded dockets to act on these requests, especially if they are not rare. In any event, it may be too late by the time the court responds. Administrative subpoenas can prevent costly delays. Last year, we worked hard to give law enforcement tools to address the serious fugitive threat, holding hearings and moving important legislation. The Congress authorized $40 million over three years to create task forces led by the Marshals Service to apprehend dangerous fugitives. As part of this effort, the Senate passed administrative subpoena authority twice by unanimous consent last year. However, this authority was not included in the final legislation because it stalled in the House last year. I hope that, as we explain the need for this authority and how it is really a very narrow expansion beyond current law, we will receive widespread support in both Houses of Congress. Administrative subpoenas are not new to federal law enforcement. They have existed for years to help authorities solve various crimes, including drug offenses, child pornography, and even health care fraud. However, this bill places greater restrictions on the use of the subpoenas than currently exist in these other areas. These subpoenas could be used only to obtain documents and records, not testimony. None of us want a subpoena issued unless it is needed and fully complies with the law. This bill contains procedures for people to challenge the subpoena that they receive and have a judge review whether it should be issued. Judicial review is required in any case where the person requests it. The subpoena authority has no impact on the Fourth Amendment and its general prohibition on searches and seizures without a court-approved warrant. Courts have routinely upheld administrative subpoenas as entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment. Administrative subpoenas do not allow law enforcement to enter a home or business to conduct any search. They only allow the government to receive documentary information that they can show will help them find felons who are on the run. In summary, this legislation would help authorities get the information they need to find dangerous fugitives before it is too late. I am pleased that this proposal has the endorsement of law enforcement organizations, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association. I encourage my colleagues to stand up for law enforcement and support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize an outstanding naval officer and public servant, Rear Admiral Larry C. Baucom, U.S. Navy, as he completes more than 30 years of active duty with the U.S. Navy. Whether as a midshipman at the U.S. Naval Academy, as the commanding officer of a fighter squadron, as the commander of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, or, most recently, as the Director of the Navy's Environmental Protection, Safety and Occupational Health Division, he tirelessly worked to serve America and our Navy and Marine Corps. It is a privilege for me to honor his many outstanding achievements and service to our great Nation and our service men and women. Rear Admiral Baucom is a son of Columbia, SC. A 1970 Naval Academy graduate, he was awarded his Naval Flight Officer wings in 1971. During his 30-year career in the Navy, he served in a variety of operational assignments, including Fighter Squadron 32, Fighter Wing ONE, the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School in Patuxent River, MD, and as Executive Officer of USS George Washington, CVN 73. An inspired, confident leader, he commanded Fighter Squadron 143, USS Trenton, LPD 14, and the nuclear- powered aircraft carrier, USS Carl Vinson, CVN 70. Under his command, USS Carl Vinson was awarded two Meritorious Unit Commendations and the Battle Efficiency Award for 1996 following a highly successful Arabian Gulf deployment that included combat operations in support of Operation DESERT STRIKE. Following this tour, he served at the Supreme Allied Headquarters as the Assistant Chief of Staff for Plans and Policy. Rear Admiral Baucom also continuously pursued educational opportunities throughout his career being awarded a Master's Degrees in Systems Management from the University of Southern California and in National Security and Strategic Studies from the Naval War College. In his most recent assignment as the Navy's Director of Environmental Protection, Safety and Occupational Health Division, Rear Admiral Baucom worked to ensure that the Navy remains a leader of environmental stewardship and towards ensuring the safety and welfare of its Sailors, Marines and civil service employees. Whether contributing to the Department's efforts to guarantee critical training at the Atlantic Fleet Weapons Training Facility at Vieques, Puerto Rico, protecting the health and safety of shipyard workers, or addressing the encroachment issues that complicate our operational and training ranges, Rear Admiral Baucom's leadership has been vital to the readiness and success of our country's military forces. Rear Admiral Baucom provided exceptional advice, support and guidance to the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations. His keen insight, relentless dedication, and extraordinary talent have contributed significantly to building and maintaining the world's best- trained, best-equipped, and best-prepared Navy and Marine Corps. His vision has positively shaped the future readiness and capabilities of the fleet in ways that will resonate for generations. I thank Rear Admiral Baucom for his many public service contributions and a life devoted to ensuring our national security. It is my distinct honor to wish him, and his wife Linda, much happiness and fair winds and following seas as they begin a new chapter in their lives.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I know that my colleagues are aware of the excellent services provided by the military liaison offices of the Senate. For many years military and civilian liaison officers have given invaluable assistance in the areas of constituent services, military issues, and fact-finding visits. One of these liaison officers is Mrs. Brigitte Hanes. During the past nine years she has worked tirelessly solving the problems of soldiers and their families who have asked for help from their Senators. The wife of an Army officer, Brigitte raised two daughters before embarking on her own career. First, she served on the staff of the Commander in Chief of the Joint Forces in Korea. Then she was the Personal Affairs Coordinator for foreign military students at the Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth. Brigitte and her husband moved to Washington in 1991. It was December of that year that she went to work in the Army Senate Liaison Office. She gained a reputation around the Senate as a very reliable person. Few people are more widely known and respected than Brigitte. She is known throughout the Senate as an expert in dealing with a range of constituent issues relating to the Army and many other military matters. When I needed to get something done I would call Brigitte. For example: she arranged for the shipment of a wheel chair from a Senator's office to the mayor of a town in Bosnia. In fact she delivered it to Andrews Air Force Base herself to start it on its way. She talked to a deserter and although he was afraid, she convinced him to turn himself in to Army authorities. She talked a soldier into boarding a plane for Korea. He had called his mother from the airport and told her he was not going to get on the plane. She called the Senator's aide who put in a conference call to Brigitte. She got two years incapacitation pay for a Reservist whose unit administrator had been unable to get it for him. In addition to her vast casework load she organized and escorted Senate staffers on very informative orientation visits to military posts where they could see the Army at work. She has been honored repeatedly by her superiors who recognized what a valuable resource they had in Brigitte. We will miss her support in the Army Senate Liaison Office when she leaves at the end of August to accept a promotion in the office of the Chief of Army Reserves' Legislative Liaison Office. I would like to say thank you to Brigitte for her nine years of devoted service to the Senate and to wish her success and happiness in her new endeavor.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would comprehensively reform Federal Prison Industries or UNICOR. It would eliminate the preference that Prison Industries currently has to make products for the Federal Government, while for the first time allowing private companies to partner with FPI for inmate labor. These changes would benefit all interested parties without endangering this essential inmate work program. I am pleased to have Senator Hatch as an original cosponsor for this important bill. FPI is a self-sufficient government corporation that provides work for over 20,000 inmates in the Federal Bureau of Prisons. This program is critical to keeping inmates productively occupied, which helps keep prisons safe for staff, inmates, and the public. At the same time, inmates learn important job skills that they can use when they return to society. FPI has been proven to be the best prison program in helping prevent inmates from returning to a life of crime. It does all of this without costing any taxpayer money. Prison Industries is an especially critical program today as the inmate population continues to grow dramatically. The number of Federal prisoners has doubled since 1989, and is continuing to grow every year. For the Bureau of Prisons to maintain just 25 percent of the work- eligible inmates in FPI, it must produce more and more products to keep its growing population working and occupied. Since it was created in 1934, Prison Industries has had the authority to sell products only to Federal agencies and not to the private sector. In return, Federal agencies generally must purchase items that FPI makes, if it can provide them on time and at competitive prices. This is known as the mandatory source requirement. The equity of mandatory source has been debated for years. I believe that we should resolve this issue once and for all in this Congress by eliminating this governmental preference. However, we should do so in a way that will maintain, not destroy, this successful work program. The preference that FPI currently has regarding the Federal market is essential as long as Prison Industries is only permitted to sell products to Federal agencies. However, Prison Industries can do much more and actually be a partner with the private sector if it has the opportunity. Thus, this bill would eliminate the mandatory source requirement, and it would allow private businesses to contract with FPI for inmates to make the company's products in the commercial market, both domestically and overseas. One of the most promising areas for prison labor today is overseas markets where American companies simply cannot compete today. Economists, including respected labor expert Professor Richard Freeman, have argued that one of the best uses of prison labor is to produce goods that are not made in the United States, such as toys. This could help the American economy by bringing jobs back that we have lost. Of course, if prisoners make products that are not made in the United States, they are not displacing American workers. However, jobs would not only be created in prisons but also in the private sector. Private companies would provide raw materials, transport goods, and otherwise supplement the prison labor. This is a creative way to bring back industries whose entire economic support structure is overseas. Also, this could prove to help FPI reduce its need to make the type of products that it makes today while keeping inmates just as busy. It would also make the work experience for the inmates even more practical if they were making products for the private companies. Thus, the legislation would permit private companies to contract with FPI to provide the labor to make products that are otherwise being made by foreign labor outside the United States, and pay the inmates at the current prison industry wages. We must keep in mind that FPI has hidden burdens that increase its labor costs. Inmates are significantly less productive than private workers for various reasons including limited skills, less education, and the security needs at prisoner work areas. Nevertheless, under this legislation, when FPI contracted with private companies domestically, it would pay inmates the same as private employees who do the same type of work in the area. These ``comparable locality wages'' are identical to the wages that state prison industry work programs provide today. As under state prison work programs, the pay could never be below the Federal minimum wage. The additional money that inmates would earn under these new higher wages would be used to help pay debts that the inmate owes to society, such as more restitution to victims and child support obligations. Also, if funds were available, inmates would reimburse the government for a portion of their room and board costs. Further, the bill would increase the size of the Prison Industries Board of Directors to provide greater representation, including members recommended by the Senate and House leadership. Also, decisions about whether a product is otherwise being made by foreign workers outside the United States would be determined by an independent panel, separate from the Prison Industries Board. This panel would consist of representatives of the Departments of Commerce and Labor, as well as labor unions and the business community. The cornerstone of the legislation is that the mandatory source requirement would be eliminated, which is a change that has long been sought by certain business and labor interests. The bill would phase it out over five years to permit a smooth transition and prevent any major disruptions in inmate labor programs. However, during this period, FPI would be prohibited from expanding beyond its current mandatory source levels in any existing federal market. I believe that this bill represents comprehensive, fundamental reform of Prison Industries. It would not be an easy task for Prison Industries to transform its market, as this bill would require. However, I think this legislation constitutes a fair and equitable compromise for this longstanding issue. It eliminates the mandatory source once and for all. At the same time, it creates new markets for prison labor, especially overseas markets where America simply cannot compete today. It is time that we took an entirely new approach toward the issue of prison labor. We have the opportunity to move Prison Industries into the new century as a new, dynamic partner with the private sector. I encourage my colleagues to join me and Senator Hatch in supporting this bold reform initiative. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section by section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would comprehensively reform Federal Prison Industries or UNICOR. It would eliminate the preference that Prison Industries currently has to make products for the Federal Government, while for the first time allowing private companies to partner with FPI for inmate labor. These changes would benefit all interested parties without endangering this essential inmate work program. I am pleased to have Senator Hatch as an original cosponsor for this important bill. FPI is a self-sufficient government corporation that provides work for over 20,000 inmates in the Federal Bureau of Prisons. This program is critical to keeping inmates productively occupied, which helps keep prisons safe for staff, inmates, and the public. At the same time, inmates learn important job skills that they can use when they return to society. FPI has been proven to be the best prison program in helping prevent inmates from returning to a life of crime. It does all of this without costing any taxpayer money. Prison Industries is an especially critical program today as the inmate population continues to grow dramatically. The number of Federal prisoners has doubled since 1989, and is continuing to grow every year. For the Bureau of Prisons to maintain just 25 percent of the work- eligible inmates in FPI, it must produce more and more products to keep its growing population working and occupied. Since it was created in 1934, Prison Industries has had the authority to sell products only to Federal agencies and not to the private sector. In return, Federal agencies generally must purchase items that FPI makes, if it can provide them on time and at competitive prices. This is known as the mandatory source requirement. The equity of mandatory source has been debated for years. I believe that we should resolve this issue once and for all in this Congress by eliminating this governmental preference. However, we should do so in a way that will maintain, not destroy, this successful work program. The preference that FPI currently has regarding the Federal market is essential as long as Prison Industries is only permitted to sell products to Federal agencies. However, Prison Industries can do much more and actually be a partner with the private sector if it has the opportunity. Thus, this bill would eliminate the mandatory source requirement, and it would allow private businesses to contract with FPI for inmates to make the company's products in the commercial market, both domestically and overseas. One of the most promising areas for prison labor today is overseas markets where American companies simply cannot compete today. Economists, including respected labor expert Professor Richard Freeman, have argued that one of the best uses of prison labor is to produce goods that are not made in the United States, such as toys. This could help the American economy by bringing jobs back that we have lost. Of course, if prisoners make products that are not made in the United States, they are not displacing American workers. However, jobs would not only be created in prisons but also in the private sector. Private companies would provide raw materials, transport goods, and otherwise supplement the prison labor. This is a creative way to bring back industries whose entire economic support structure is overseas. Also, this could prove to help FPI reduce its need to make the type of products that it makes today while keeping inmates just as busy. It would also make the work experience for the inmates even more practical if they were making products for the private companies. Thus, the legislation would permit private companies to contract with FPI to provide the labor to make products that are otherwise being made by foreign labor outside the United States, and pay the inmates at the current prison industry wages. We must keep in mind that FPI has hidden burdens that increase its labor costs. Inmates are significantly less productive than private workers for various reasons including limited skills, less education, and the security needs at prisoner work areas. Nevertheless, under this legislation, when FPI contracted with private companies domestically, it would pay inmates the same as private employees who do the same type of work in the area. These ``comparable locality wages'' are identical to the wages that state prison industry work programs provide today. As under state prison work programs, the pay could never be below the Federal minimum wage. The additional money that inmates would earn under these new higher wages would be used to help pay debts that the inmate owes to society, such as more restitution to victims and child support obligations. Also, if funds were available, inmates would reimburse the government for a portion of their room and board costs. Further, the bill would increase the size of the Prison Industries Board of Directors to provide greater representation, including members recommended by the Senate and House leadership. Also, decisions about whether a product is otherwise being made by foreign workers outside the United States would be determined by an independent panel, separate from the Prison Industries Board. This panel would consist of representatives of the Departments of Commerce and Labor, as well as labor unions and the business community. The cornerstone of the legislation is that the mandatory source requirement would be eliminated, which is a change that has long been sought by certain business and labor interests. The bill would phase it out over five years to permit a smooth transition and prevent any major disruptions in inmate labor programs. However, during this period, FPI would be prohibited from expanding beyond its current mandatory source levels in any existing federal market. I believe that this bill represents comprehensive, fundamental reform of Prison Industries. It would not be an easy task for Prison Industries to transform its market, as this bill would require. However, I think this legislation constitutes a fair and equitable compromise for this longstanding issue. It eliminates the mandatory source once and for all. At the same time, it creates new markets for prison labor, especially overseas markets where America simply cannot compete today. It is time that we took an entirely new approach toward the issue of prison labor. We have the opportunity to move Prison Industries into the new century as a new, dynamic partner with the private sector. I encourage my colleagues to join me and Senator Hatch in supporting this bold reform initiative. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section by section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support of Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002. I believe the Senate has addressed these very complex matters appropriately. As we all know, this bill funds many significant projects. Of particular significance to me is the critical funding this bill provides for the clean-up activities at our Nation's Department of Energy nuclear weapons sites and more specifically the Savannah River Site (SRS) in my hometown of Aiken, SC. I was disappointed by the administration's proposed budget for these activities, and have indicated so publicly on numerous occasions. At SRS alone, the fiscal year 2002 request was almost $160 million less than the previous year. This bill provides an additional $181 million for these crucial cleanup activities and should ensure that SRS will stay on schedule to meet its future regulatory commitments to the State of South Carolina as well as the Environmental Protection Agency. While I am supportive of most elements of this bill there were some issues which concerned me. Specifically, the report which accompanies this bill included a directive that the Department of Energy transfer the Accelerator for the Production of Tritium (APT) project from the Office of Defense Programs within the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology for inclusion in the Advanced Accelerator Applications office. I disagree with this proposal and will oppose such a move. First and foremost, this is an appropriations bill, not an authorization. The APT program was authorized in section 3134 of the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2000 as a defense program. I wholeheartedly support exploring additional scientific, engineering research, development and demonstrations with this superb technology and I believe this work may yield dramatic advances. However, APT is and should remain a Defense Program. Last year, the Department established a new Accelerator Development effort. This office is ``Co-Chaired'' by the NNSA's Office of Defense Programs and the Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology. I have no objections of combining efforts at the Department of Energy where appropriate, however, the primary mission of the APT is, as defined by law, to serve as a backup source of tritium for our nation's strategic arsenal. Finally, I would like to discuss the Fissile Materials Disposition Programs as discussed in the bill. This bill correctly describes the excess weapons grade plutonium in Russia as a ``clear and present danger to the security of United States. . . .'' I believe it is in the best interest of all Americans to move forward with this program expeditiously. I am further pleased that the administration fully funded the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility to be constructed at the Savannah River Site. Unfortunately, I have recently heard some troubling stories regarding the commitment of the White House to this important program. The New York Times ran a story this Monday, July 16, 2001 entitled ``U.S. Review on Russia Urges Keeping Most Arms Control,'' which greatly concerned me. According to the article, while most of the programs initiated in the previous Administration will be retained, ``the White House plans to overhaul a hugely expensive effort to enable Russia and the United States to each destroy 34 tons of stored plutonium. . . .'' Mr. President, what the White House is discussing here is the Mixed Oxide Fuel Program, known as MOX. This facility is planned for the Savannah River Site. As you likely already know, the MOX program has an invaluable counter-proliferation mission. Thanks to an agreement with the Russian Government, signed last year, the MOX program will help take weapons grade plutonium out of former Soviet stockpiles, and will also divert such materials from potentially falling into the hands of rogue nations, terrorists, or criminal organizations. In and of itself, this clearly makes the MOX program worth every penny. Earlier this year I asked Secretary of Energy Abraham where he stands on this program and he responded that MOX is his ``highest nonproliferation priority.'' Beyond the important national security aspects of this program there are many domestic issues which must be considered in evaluating this program. From the standpoint of providing a much needed source of energy, MOX makes good sense. Presently, there are quite literally tons of surplus nuclear weapons materials stored throughout the Department of Energy (DOE) industrial complex that could be processed in our MOX facility and reintroduced as a fuel for commercial nuclear reactors. Here is the beauty of this program, once MOX is burned in selected reactors it is gone for good. It cannot be used for weapons ever again and there is no more need for storage. Furthermore, I am convinced that not dealing with the existing stockpiles of nuclear materials and oxides that are found at the six DOE industrial and research sites will ultimately cost substantially more than the construction of the MOX facility. According to the previously mentioned news article, ``the administration insists it is still exploring less expensive options.'' According to a November 29, 1996 DOE report entitled Technical Summary for Long Term Storage of Weapons-Useable Fissile Materials, the costs of maintaining the current infrastructure far exceeds the costs of building and operating the MOX plant according to the current plan. According to the report, the cost for storage of plutonium in constant 1996 dollars is estimated to be approximately ``$380 million per year and the operating cost for 50 years of operation at approximately $3.2 billion. The cost is insensitive to where the plutonium is stored at any one of the four sites.'' The status quo simply does not make fiscal sense. Perhaps the most critical domestic consideration regarding the MOX program is that it creates a ``path out'' for materials currently being stored at SRS and awaiting processing as well as those materials that could be shipped to the site and processed there in the future. South Carolina agreed to accept nuclear materials shipments into SRS based on the understanding that an expeditious ``pathway out'' would exist. Canceling the Plutonium Disposition Program eliminates the ``path out.'' Neither I nor anyone else who represents South Carolina at the Federal or State level is willing to see the Savannah River Site become the de facto dumping ground for the nation's nuclear materials. If the ``path out'' for these materials disappears, then the ``path in'' to the Savannah River Site is likely to become muddy. That is bad for cleanup nationwide. Ambassador Howard Baker and Mr. Lloyd Cutler reached a series of conclusions in their recent report from the Russia Task Force, any one of which justifies aggressive support for the MOX program. However one statement struck me as particularly poignant. Specifically, as stated in the report, ``the national security benefits to U.S. citizens from securing and/or neutralizing the equivalent of more than 80,000 nuclear weapons and potential weapons would constitute the highest return on investment in any current U.S. national security and defense program.'' I am concerned by the signals coming from the White House. I intend to ask President Bush to publicly support this initiative and put an end to my concerns as well as those of my colleagues and all of the states involved. In closing, this is a good bill and I am pleased to support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the New York Times article in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND. The Senator is correct, the status quo simply does not make fiscal sense. It is my understanding that the cost of the two plants together is less than the cost of current storage requirements, over a comparable time period. In fact, according to a November 1996 DOE report entitled ``Technical Summary for Long Term Storage of Weapons-Useable Fissile Materials,'' building and operating the MOX plant over a 50-year period, is over $1 billion less than the costs of maintaining the current infrastructure.

Mr. THURMOND. I thank the Senator for his question. While MOX should be the primary disposition option, I do agree there should be a backup plan for disposing surplus plutonium. I will work with my colleagues to require the administration to guarantee a back-up plan.

Mr. THURMOND. I join my colleague, Senator Hollings, and express my concern regarding recent developments in the Plutonium Disposition Program. I thank him for bringing this discussion to the floor today. The Plutonium Disposition Program, particularly the Mixed Oxide Fuel Program is of critical importance to our Nation. There are invaluable national security aspects, including the counter-proliferation mission. In addition, the MOX program can be an important factor in addressing our Nation's energy needs. I have had many conversations with administration officials on this matter. I received personal assurances from the Secretary of Energy, who stated MOX is his ``highest nonproliferation priority.'' Yet I am still concerned the administration is not fully committed to the Plutonium Disposition Program, leaving South Carolina as a dumping ground for our Nation's surplus nuclear weapons material.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, whether as an officer in the United States Army or as a dedicated public servant at the Social Security Administration, Coy A. Short has served his Nation with honor and integrity. After two and a half decades of devoted service, Coy will retire from the Social Security Administration, and I rise today to pay tribute to a man who has made countless contributions to the welfare of America. Coy has a rich history of public service which began when he volunteered to serve as an officer in the United States Army. Recognized as a leader with a solid work ethic and uncompromising character, Coy eventually rose to the rank of Captain. After departing the Army, he has continued to support our Armed Forces. He served as Chairman of the Georgia Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve for over ten years, and continues to work with this committee and other organizations dedicated to assisting our men and women in uniform. Coy's selfless involvement with these associations has resulted in his receipt of numerous awards and recognitions, including the Sam Nunn Award, the Oglethorpe Distinguished Service Medal for Outstanding Support of the Georgia Guard, and the Patrick Henry Award from the National Guard Association both in 1997 and 1999. Also, in 1998, he was appointed to the prestigious position of Ambassador for the U.S. Army Reserve. Though a successful businessman, Coy's devotion to his country eventually lured him back to the realm of public service. In 1977, he began his career at the Social Security Administration--an agency on which many livelihoods depend. During Coy's tenure with the Social Security Administration, his workhorse attitude and proficient managerial skills enabled him to quickly ascend through the ranks. He held several management positions at both district and branch offices throughout the Atlanta region and served as Director of the Office of Congressional, Governmental and External Affairs prior to his selection as Deputy Regional Commissioner. Though a humble man, whose greatest reward is assisting others, he was recognized for his dedication to the Social Security Administration with their highest award, the ``Commissioner's Citation.'' It has been a privilege to know Coy for the last thirty years. He is a true patriot, and I commend him for his service to our Nation. Though the Administration will be losing one of their finest, they will no doubt continue to benefit from his contributions for years to come. I wish him, his wife Judy, and their two children, Greg and Karen, health, happiness, and success in all of their future endeavors.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a dedicated and innovative public servant, Timothy F. Deerr, the former Executive Director of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, who recently retired after more than 26 years of loyal and selfless service. As any citizen of the United States should know, two major powers emerged from the ashes and ruins of World War II--the United States of America and the now defunct Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The ideologies and interests of these two nations were diametrically opposed and the aspirations of Soviet communists for global control made it imperative that America's foot soldiers and leaders in national security affairs exercise vigilance and sacrifice in defense of freedom. For almost fifty years, these two superpowers engaged in a ``cold war,'' where conflict was waged through proxies, brinksmanship, espionage, and counterespionage. It was in this environment in 1975 that Timothy Deerr joined the battle as a civilian Special Agent of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations. By the time he completed his career earlier this year, Timothy Deerr had spent most of his professional life as a cold warrior and spy catcher. But, before he entered what has alternately been called the ``world's second oldest profession'' and the ``wilderness of mirrors,'' he started out as a criminal investigator in Dayton, Ohio. It was here, at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, that Special Agent Deerr learned and honed his skills as an investigator, gaining invaluable experience in how to read people, analyze facts, and test hypotheses. After 6 years of working criminal cases in Ohio, Special Agent Deerr swapped the Buckeye State for the divided city of Berlin. Since renamed as the Capital of a united Germany, Berlin was then a city carved into sectors of control--a virtual battleground of espionage and counter- espionage activities. Intelligence operatives from the east and west worked feverishly against one another, both to steal secrets and to protect secrets from being compromised. For two years, Special Agent Deerr conducted critical and successful counterintelligence operations defending against foreign intelligence services stationed in the communist sector of Berlin. As a demonstration of the sensitivity of the operations he conducted, his experiences and cases in Berlin remain classified to this day, twenty years after he initially reported for duty there and ten years after the fall of the Berlin Wall. From 1987, when he left Berlin, until 1994, Special Agent Deerr earned and held positions of increasing responsibility and importance within the Office of Special Investigations, including those of Chief, Central European Counterintelligence Operations, Wiesbaden, West Germany. Later, as the OSI Director of Counterintelligence, he managed OSI counterintelligence investigations and operations around the world and represented OSI and the Air Force on a number of senior policy boards that crafted our national counterintelligence strategy and policies. While freedom loving people in the United States and throughout the world heralded and celebrated the implosion of communism in the early 1990s, an ironic byproduct of the end of the Soviet Union ensured America's Cold Warriors would enjoy little respite. While the USSR was a threat to peace and security for almost fifty years, it was a threat that we were able to identify and engage. After the Cold War, the world became, in many regards, a puzzling patchwork of active and potential adversaries of the United States and American citizens. Not only were foreign governments targeting our secrets and threatening our security, so were criminal and terrorist organizations. In recognition of this new dynamic, in 1994, the President of the United States directed a re- examination of the U.S. Counterintelligence Program, including ways to improve coordination, integration and accountability of American counterintelligence efforts. As a result, Presidential Decision Directive 24 was issued in May 1994. The directive, in part, mandated the establishment of the National Counterintelligence Center, and Special Agent Deerr was tapped as the Deputy Director of the new National Counterintelligence Center, an impressive distinction and a testament to his reputation and success as one of America's premier spy catchers. In 1996, Special Agent Deerr returned to Air Force OSI as its Executive Director--the senior civilian Special Agent in the United States Air Force. During his five-year tenure in the top civilian position within OSI, Mr. Deerr earned a reputation for innovation and excellence in leadership. He took the helm at an interesting and challenging time in the history of OSI. As a result of the end of the Cold War, diminishing budgets, and retirements of personnel who entered government service at the height of the Cold War, he faced personnel upheaval and institutional reorganization. America and our Armed Forces were faced with new and daunting challenges that required institutional agility, professional creativity, and cutting-edge technical skills. Under Executive Director Deerr's steady stewardship, OSI ``re- invented'' itself as a model for the 21st Century in the fields of counterintelligence, anti-terrorism, and crime fighting. OSI built DoD's Computer Forensics Laboratory--America's premier electronic media forensics lab dedicated to ferreting out evidence of computer crime, network intrusions, and felony tampering with DoD computer systems. OSI started and still manages the Defense Computer Investigations Training Program--DoD's ``graduate school'' for those tasked with investigating cyber-related crimes. Furthermore, Executive Director Deerr emerged as a visionary leader of the Defense Criminal Investigative Organizations, DCIO, Enterprise-Wide Working Group, the DEW Group. Mr. Deerr and the DEW Group devised innovative enterprise- wide pilot programs to leverage scarce DoD resources, improve training and deployment of America's front line investigators, and save taxpayer dollars. Executive Director Deerr's influence and innovations extended far beyond DoD. Through his active membership in the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the IACP International Policy Committee, Tim Deerr was instrumental in proliferating enduring principles of policing professionalism, integrity, civil liberties, and selfless service to the international policing executive community across the globe. After 26 years of service, Executive Director Timothy Deerr left Air Force OSI an even better agency than the one he joined in 1975. His career ran the gamut from criminal investigations to catching spies, and from being a rookie agent to the top civilian on the payroll. During his almost three decades of service, the world changed dramatically from a bipolar one where there was a constant threat of nuclear war to one where the United States must be prepared to counter threats on a multitude of new fronts. Through his uncommon dedication and selfless devotion to duty he has left an indelible mark on the face of counterintelligence within the U.S. Government. I am certain that all my colleagues will want to join me in commending Mr. Deerr on a successful career and a job well done as well as wishing him, his wife Terri, and their daughter Alexandra, great health, happiness, and prosperity in the years to come.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Federal execution that was carried out earlier today. I believe that the Justice Department did what was right today when it carried out the death penalty against drug kingpin and murderer Juan Raul Garza. Steadfast death penalty opponents have tried to use Mr. Garza's case to justify a moratorium on the death penalty. It is puzzling why they would because his case in no way supports their arguments about innocence and racial disparity in the administration of the death penalty. First, Mr. Garza was clearly guilty. He was convicted of murdering three people, one of who he shot in the back of the head, and he was tied to five other killings. Even his lawyers are not claiming innocence. Second, there was no evidence that his race had anything to do with him receiving the death penalty. The judge and the main prosecutor in his case were Hispanic, as were all of his victims except one. The majority of the jurors had hispanic surnames, and all the jurors certified that race was not involved in their decision. Moreover, there were six death-eligible cases in this district, the Southern District of Texas, all involving Hispanic defendants. Yet, Mr. Garza's was the only case for which the local U.S. Attorney recommended the death penalty, and the only one for which it was sought. Mr. Garza was convicted under a law that Congress passed in 1988, which reinstated the death penalty and directed it at ruthless drug kingpins like Mr. Garza who commit murder as part of their drug trafficking. By following through with the death penalty in appropriate cases such as this, the Attorney General is simply enforcing the laws he has a duty to uphold. Mr. Garza was treated fairly and had full access to the extensive protections of the criminal justice system. This execution is not a case study in injustice. It is a case study in how the system works properly. I agree that continued study of the death penalty is worthwhile, but studies should not be used as an excuse to place a moratorium on the death penalty while opponents endlessly search for flaws in the system.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, two hundred and twenty-four years ago today, the United States was engaged in its War for Independence. I note that the American Continental Army, now the United States Army, was established by the Continental Congress, just two years earlier on June 14, 1775. I express my congratulations to the United States Army on its 226th birthday. At the start of that War, American colonists fought under a variety of local flags. The Continental Colors, or Grand Union Flag, was the unofficial national flag from 1775-1777. This flag had thirteen alternating red and white stripes, with the English flag in the upper left corner. Following the publication of the Declaration of Independence, it was no longer appropriate to fly a banner containing the British flag. Accordingly, on June 14, 1777, the Continental Congress passed a resolution that ``the Flag of the United States be 13 stripes alternate red and white, and the Union be 13 stars white and a blue field representing a new constellation.'' No record exists as to why the Continental Congress adopted the now- familiar red, white and blue. A later action by the Congress, convened under the Articles of Confederation, may provide an appropriate interpretation on the use of these colors. Five years after adopting the flag resolution, in 1782, a resolution regarding the Great Seal of the United States contained a statement on the meanings of the colors: red--for hardiness and courage; white--for purity and innocence; and blue for vigilance, perseverance, and justice. The stripes, symbolic of the thirteen original colonies, were similar to the five red and four white stripes on the flag of the Sons of Liberty, an early colonial flag. The stars of the first national flag after 1777 were arranged in a variety of patterns. The most popular design placed the stars in alternating rows of three or two stars. Another flag placed twelve stars in a circle with the thirteenth star in the center. A now popular image of a flag of that day, although it was rarely used at the time, placed the thirteen stars in a circle. As our country has grown, the Stars and Stripes have undergone necessary modifications. Alterations include the addition, then deletion, of stripes; and the addition and rearrangement of the field of stars. While our Star-Spangled Banner has seen changes, the message it represents is constant. That message is one of patriotism and respect, wherever the flag is found flying. Henry Ward Beecher, a prominent 19th century clergyman and lecturer stated, ``A thoughtful mind, when it sees a Nation's flag, sees not the flag only, but the Nation itself; and whatever may be its symbols, its insignia, he reads chiefly in the flag the Government, the principles, the truths, and the history which belong to the nation that sets it forth.'' Old Glory represents the land, the people, the government and the ideals of the United States, no matter when or where it is displayed throughout the world--in land battle, the first such occurrence being August 16, 1777 at the Battle of Bennington; on a U.S. Navy ship, such as the Ranger, under the command of John Paul Jones in November 1777; or in Antarctica, in 1840, on the pilot boat Flying Fish of the Charles Wilkes expedition. The flag has proudly represented our Republic beyond the Earth and into the heavens. The stirring images of Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin saluting the flag on the moon, on July 20, 1969 moved the Nation to new heights of patriotism and national pride. Today we pause to commemorate our Nation's most clear symbol--our flag. An early account of a day of celebration of the flag was reported by the Hartford Courant suggesting an observance was held throughout the State of Connecticut, in 1861. The origin of our modern Flag Day is often traced to the work of Bernard Cigrand, who in 1885 held his own observance of the flag's birthday in his one-room schoolhouse in Waubeka, Wisconsin. This began his decades-long campaign for a day of national recognition of the Flag. His advocacy for this cause was reflected in numerous newspaper articles, books, magazines and lectures of the day. His celebrated pamphlet on ``Laws and Customs Regulating the Use of the Flag of the United States'' received wide distribution. His petition to President Woodrow Wilson for a national observance was rewarded with a Presidential Proclamation designating June 14, 1916 as Flag Day. On a prior occasion President Wilson noted, ``Things that the flag stands for were created by the experiences of a great people. Everything that it stands for was written by their lives. The flag is the embodiment, not of sentiment, but of history. It represents the experiences made by men and women, the experiences of those who do and live under the flag.'' Flag Day was officially designated a National observance by a Joint Resolution approved by Congress and the President in 1949, and first celebrated the following year. This year, then, marks the 51st anniversary of a Congressionally designated Flag Day. It is appropriate that we pause today, on this Flag Day, to render our respect and honor to the symbol of our Nation, and to review our commitment to the underlying principles it represents. Today, let us reflect on the deeds and sacrifices of those who have gone before and the legacy they left to us. Let us ponder our own endeavors and the inheritance we will leave to future generations. Finally, as we commemorate the heritage our flag represents, may we as a Nation pledge not only our allegiance, but also our efforts to furthering the standards represented by its colors--courage, virtue, perseverance, and justice. Through these universal concepts, We the People can ensure better lives for ourselves and our children, for these are the characteristics of greatness. In doing so, we can move closer to the goal so well stated by Daniel Webster at the laying of the cornerstone of the Bunker Hill Monument on June 17, 1825. On that occasion he said, ``Let our object be our country, our whole country, and nothing but our country. And, by the blessing of God, may that country itself become a vast and splendid monument, not of oppression and terror, but of Wisdom, of Peace, and of Liberty, upon which the world may gaze with admiration forever.'' I have long supported legislation which imposes penalties on anyone who knowingly mutilates, defaces, burns, tramples upon, or physically defiles any U.S. flag. I have also supported a constitutional amendment to grant Congress and the States the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the U.S. flag. I regret that the Senate has yet to adopt a Resolution for a flag protection Constitutional amendment. I am pleased that the Senate adopted a Resolution to provide for a designated Senator to lead the Senate in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States. This has added greatly to the opening of the Senate each day. Today I encourage my colleagues and all Americans to take note of the history and meaning of this 14th day of June. We celebrate our Flag, observing its 224th birthday, and the 226-year-old Army which has so proudly and valiantly defended it and our great Nation.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina, Senator Helms. This amendment, the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act, is very clear in its purpose, which is ``To prohibit the use of Federal funds by any State or local educational agency or school that discriminates against the Boy Scouts of America in providing equal access to school premises or facilities.'' I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this amendment. It is appropriate that this amendment be considered and adopted on this education bill. Since its founding in 1910, the Boy scouts of America, BSA, has complemented youth education with a program that teaches skills and values that will help those youth throughout their lifetimes. Over the past 91 years, more than 100 million young men and women have been served by Scouting. For those young people, Scouting has provided a program of values and leadership, joined with an opportunity to improve themselves by helping others. The BSA is primarily concerned about the youth it serves. Its mission statement states: ``The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law.'' The Scouting program has three specific objectives, commonly referred to as the ``Aims of Scouting.'' They are character development, citizenship training, and personal fitness. The methods by which the aims are achieved are Advancement, Uniforms, Outdoor Program and Skills, Youth Leadership, Patrol Method, Community Service, and Adult Association. In addition, the Scouting Program through a variety of means works to prevent child abuse, drug abuse, hunger, functional illiteracy, and teen unemployment. Scouting has become an American institution, a natural element in most communities. Scouts exemplify the values outlined in the Scout Oath and Law and dedicate themselves to serving their communities. The BSA respects the rights of people and groups who hold values that differ from those encompassed in the Scout Oath and Laws, and the BSA makes no effort to deny the rights of those whose views differ to hold their attitudes or opinions. Likewise, the Boy Scouts of America aims to allow youth to live and to learn as children and enjoy Scouting without immersing them in the politics of the day. Unfortunately, certain groups dissatisfied with the Boy Scouts of America's membership policies and the moral views on which they are based have suggested that the BSA not have the privilege of meeting in public schools or distributing recruitment information at public schools. I do not agree with that suggestion. Just as other student or community groups are permitted to have access to public school facilities, the Boy Scouts of America should have the same access. I am proud of my association with the Boy Scouts of America. I strongly support the amendment that would permit the Boy Scouts to have equal access to public school facilities. This amendment is consistent with the decision by the United States Supreme Court which reaffirmed the Boy Scouts of America's standing as a private organization with the right to set its own membership and leadership standards.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am very pleased to support Mr. Ted Olson today to be Solicitor General. Mr. Olson is one of the most qualified people ever nominated for this position. He has had an extensive and impressive legal career, specializing in appellate law. He has argued many cases of great significance in the Federal courts, including 15 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. He also has written extensively and testified before the Congress on a wide variety of legal issues. In addition, he served admirably as Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel under President Reagan. He provided expert, nonpartisan advice based on the law. I am confident he will do the same as Solicitor General. For example, he has assured the Judiciary Committee that he will defend laws of Congress as long as there is any reasonable argument to support them. Over the years, he has earned a distinguished reputation in the legal community. In fact, he has been endorsed for this position by a wide variety of people in the profession, including Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe. Mr. Olson is a decent, honorable man, and a person of high character and integrity. He is one of the most capable and distinguished attorneys practicing law today. Many allegations have been raised about Mr. Olson, but there is no merit to these charges. The fact that allegations are raised does not mean they are true or that they have any significance. Based on reservations raised by Democrats, the Judiciary Committee has closely reviewed these matters. Throughout the process, Mr. Olson has been very cooperative and straightforward with the committee. It is true that he wrote in the American Spectator about the scandals of the Clinton administration, and spoke with people involved with the magazine about these matters. After all, the Clintons were a major focus of the magazine, and there were many scandals to report about. This does not mean that Mr. Olson misled the committee about his knowledge of the Arkansas Project or anything else. There is nothing to show that he has done anything wrong, and there is no reason to keep searching. The Washington Post, which is the primary newspaper in which the allegations were raised and is not known for conservative editorials, concluded that Mr. Olson should be confirmed. It stated that ``there's no evidence that his testimony was inaccurate in any significant way.'' As chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, I know that the Justice Department needs the Solicitor General to be confirmed as soon as possible. The representative for the United States to the Supreme Court is an extremely important position that has been vacant for months. For the sake of justice, it is critical that the Senate acts on this nomination. I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Olson today. He deserves our support. I recognize that members have the right to vote against a nominee for any reason. But, if they do, I firmly believe they will be voting against one of the finest and most able men we have ever considered for Solicitor General.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, one does not need to look much further than their mailbox and the bills they receive for filling the gas tank or heating the house to realize that the United States is in need of direction and leadership when it comes to an energy policy. I am pleased that President Bush and Vice President Cheney have unveiled their energy plan and I look forward to working with the Administration on this important issue. The President's National Energy Policy is a long term approach to addressing our Nation's energy challenges. The policy is a comprehensive plan to address the needs for additional energy production and environmental protection. It will promote energy efficiency and new technologies to modernize the Nation's energy infrastructure. The President's plan will help increase energy supply through clean coal technology, nuclear energy, renewable and alternative energy, and energy conservation. Now is the appropriate time to address these issues before a major energy crisis jeopardizes our economy, national security, and our standard of living. I am especially pleased that the President highlighted production sources that have been ignored and shunned in recent years such as clean coal and nuclear power as energy sources which must again be embraced. This is a long overdue recognition of the valuable and important roles that nuclear and coal power can and must play in meeting the energy needs of the United States. These two energy sources have clear benefits. However, their increased role in meeting national needs will not be realized without challenge. To be certain, plans to build any new nuclear production plants will be opposed by some quarters. Those who refuse to recognize the indispensable role of nuclear power will do everything to delay and undermine the construction of new production facilities. Essentially these anti-nuclear obstructionists will seek to create as many obstacles as they can. Past examples have witnessed lawsuits and intervener tactics that drove plant costs up by hundreds of percent and delayed the facility coming on line by decades. Given such examples, it would certainly not seem that building new production facilities would be a financially appealing or rewarding proposition to a utility company. Yet the truth of the matter is that we desperately need to build new nuclear power production plants. Presently, the United States gets approximately 20 percent of its power from nuclear plants. Even under the most optimistic projections, the majority of the Nation's 103 nuclear power facilities will be coming to the end of their service in the coming years. The question before us is how do we move forward with increasing this critical energy infrastructure but doing so in a more timely and cost- efficient manner than what took place in the past. The President's National Energy Policy Report recommends an expansion at existing utility power plant sites. I am pleased that the President addressed this issue. As the report states, many existing nuclear power sites have the capacity to include additional reactors. This is an outstanding initiative. However, I remain concerned that even with these new reactors at existing sites the total percentage of energy created by nuclear power will decrease. Such a scenario would only exacerbate the energy shortage for years to come. Ultimately, we must identify new sites for the safe expansion of nuclear energy. I believe the solution to this challenge is creating ``energy campuses'' at existing Department of Energy facilities throughout the United States. More specifically, I am proposing co-locating civilian power production facilities on Department of Energy reservations such as: Hanford; the Nevada Test Site; the Idaho National Environmental Engineering Laboratory; and, the Savannah River Site. Creating such ``energy campuses'' would solve any number of problems associated with building a new civilian production facility. To begin, there is no need to secure new land or to convince the local populace that having a nuclear facility nearby is not a safety issue. Simply put, these are pro-nuclear communities that would welcome new industrial investment. Furthermore, it makes for a quicker and less contentious licensing process. Finally, it reduces the amount of new infrastructure required as you would be ``leveraging'' against what already exists at these locations. The benefits of such a plan are multiple, not the least being that it would get nuclear power plants built and on line rapidly. Several are in the west, the Nevada Test Site, Idaho National Environmental Engineering Laboratory, and Hanford, Washington, and each would be able to directly or indirectly provide more power to energy starved California. Furthermore, this plan guarantees long-term energy supply reliability while not contributing to greenhouse gases or depleting gas reserves. These sites were ideal for locating nuclear projects fifty years ago, and they remain so to this day. It makes perfect sense to use these existing assets as a platform upon which to expand our civilian nuclear power production capabilities. I am certain that this ``energy campus'' plan offers something for everyone, and if the Bush Administration is going to move forward with relying more heavily on nuclear energy, then this initiative is one way in which to meet the goal of making certain the energy needs of the United States are met. In order to take the first step toward establishing these energy campuses, I am introducing a bill that will direct the Secretary of Energy to undertake a study regarding the feasibility of establishing civilian nuclear power production facilities at existing Department of Energy sites. The economy of the United States is dependent upon reasonably priced energy. It is what is required to power everything from the traditional service of bringing goods to market to running the computers upon which engineers make advances in the high technology industry. There is nothing that we touch that does not rely on energy, and the less expensive the energy is, the more reasonably priced the goods or services we are purchasing or using will be. Simply put, Americans enjoy, expect, and demand reasonably priced energy. If we are going to continue to provide this resource at an affordable rate, which is a goal we must meet in order to keep our economy the world's strongest and most diverse, then we are going to have to look for innovative ways in which to supply power. It is time once again to recognize the value of nuclear power production and to find ways to bring more of these facilities ``on-line'' as quickly as possible. Establishing energy campuses at Department of Energy reservations will meet these objectives and I am certain that my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, one does not need to look much further than their mailbox and the bills they receive for filling the gas tank or heating the house to realize that the United States is in need of direction and leadership when it comes to an energy policy. I am pleased that President Bush and Vice President Cheney have unveiled their energy plan and I look forward to working with the Administration on this important issue. The President's National Energy Policy is a long term approach to addressing our Nation's energy challenges. The policy is a comprehensive plan to address the needs for additional energy production and environmental protection. It will promote energy efficiency and new technologies to modernize the Nation's energy infrastructure. The President's plan will help increase energy supply through clean coal technology, nuclear energy, renewable and alternative energy, and energy conservation. Now is the appropriate time to address these issues before a major energy crisis jeopardizes our economy, national security, and our standard of living. I am especially pleased that the President highlighted production sources that have been ignored and shunned in recent years such as clean coal and nuclear power as energy sources which must again be embraced. This is a long overdue recognition of the valuable and important roles that nuclear and coal power can and must play in meeting the energy needs of the United States. These two energy sources have clear benefits. However, their increased role in meeting national needs will not be realized without challenge. To be certain, plans to build any new nuclear production plants will be opposed by some quarters. Those who refuse to recognize the indispensable role of nuclear power will do everything to delay and undermine the construction of new production facilities. Essentially these anti-nuclear obstructionists will seek to create as many obstacles as they can. Past examples have witnessed lawsuits and intervener tactics that drove plant costs up by hundreds of percent and delayed the facility coming on line by decades. Given such examples, it would certainly not seem that building new production facilities would be a financially appealing or rewarding proposition to a utility company. Yet the truth of the matter is that we desperately need to build new nuclear power production plants. Presently, the United States gets approximately 20 percent of its power from nuclear plants. Even under the most optimistic projections, the majority of the Nation's 103 nuclear power facilities will be coming to the end of their service in the coming years. The question before us is how do we move forward with increasing this critical energy infrastructure but doing so in a more timely and cost- efficient manner than what took place in the past. The President's National Energy Policy Report recommends an expansion at existing utility power plant sites. I am pleased that the President addressed this issue. As the report states, many existing nuclear power sites have the capacity to include additional reactors. This is an outstanding initiative. However, I remain concerned that even with these new reactors at existing sites the total percentage of energy created by nuclear power will decrease. Such a scenario would only exacerbate the energy shortage for years to come. Ultimately, we must identify new sites for the safe expansion of nuclear energy. I believe the solution to this challenge is creating ``energy campuses'' at existing Department of Energy facilities throughout the United States. More specifically, I am proposing co-locating civilian power production facilities on Department of Energy reservations such as: Hanford; the Nevada Test Site; the Idaho National Environmental Engineering Laboratory; and, the Savannah River Site. Creating such ``energy campuses'' would solve any number of problems associated with building a new civilian production facility. To begin, there is no need to secure new land or to convince the local populace that having a nuclear facility nearby is not a safety issue. Simply put, these are pro-nuclear communities that would welcome new industrial investment. Furthermore, it makes for a quicker and less contentious licensing process. Finally, it reduces the amount of new infrastructure required as you would be ``leveraging'' against what already exists at these locations. The benefits of such a plan are multiple, not the least being that it would get nuclear power plants built and on line rapidly. Several are in the west, the Nevada Test Site, Idaho National Environmental Engineering Laboratory, and Hanford, Washington, and each would be able to directly or indirectly provide more power to energy starved California. Furthermore, this plan guarantees long-term energy supply reliability while not contributing to greenhouse gases or depleting gas reserves. These sites were ideal for locating nuclear projects fifty years ago, and they remain so to this day. It makes perfect sense to use these existing assets as a platform upon which to expand our civilian nuclear power production capabilities. I am certain that this ``energy campus'' plan offers something for everyone, and if the Bush Administration is going to move forward with relying more heavily on nuclear energy, then this initiative is one way in which to meet the goal of making certain the energy needs of the United States are met. In order to take the first step toward establishing these energy campuses, I am introducing a bill that will direct the Secretary of Energy to undertake a study regarding the feasibility of establishing civilian nuclear power production facilities at existing Department of Energy sites. The economy of the United States is dependent upon reasonably priced energy. It is what is required to power everything from the traditional service of bringing goods to market to running the computers upon which engineers make advances in the high technology industry. There is nothing that we touch that does not rely on energy, and the less expensive the energy is, the more reasonably priced the goods or services we are purchasing or using will be. Simply put, Americans enjoy, expect, and demand reasonably priced energy. If we are going to continue to provide this resource at an affordable rate, which is a goal we must meet in order to keep our economy the world's strongest and most diverse, then we are going to have to look for innovative ways in which to supply power. It is time once again to recognize the value of nuclear power production and to find ways to bring more of these facilities ``on-line'' as quickly as possible. Establishing energy campuses at Department of Energy reservations will meet these objectives and I am certain that my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to close a long-standing loophole in our Nation's labor laws, and help stop union violence in America. The bill would make clear that violence conducted in the course of a strike is illegal under the Federal extortion law, the Hobbs Act. I am pleased to have Chairman Hatch and others join me in introducing this important measure. Violence has no place in our society. As I have said many times before, I would, if it were in my power to do so, put an absolute stop to the disruption of commerce in this country by intimidation and violence, whatever its source. Unfortunately, corrupt union officials have often been the source of such violence. Encouraged by their special Federal exemption from prosecution, corrupt union officials have routinely used intimidation and violence over the years to achieve their goals. Since 1975, the Institute for Labor Relations Research has documented over 9,000 reported incidents of union violence in America. A major study entitled ``Union Violence: The Record and the Response by Courts, Legislatures, and the NLRB,'' which was updated and republished in 1999 by the John M. Olin Institute at George Mason University, discusses the problem and trends in union violence in detail. This updated study shows that while union membership and the total number of strikes has decreased in recent decades, the number of reported incidents of violence per strike has actually increased. It is clear that union violence remains a serious issue facing our Nation today. Let me make clear that I agree that the Federal Government should not get involved in minor, isolated physical altercations and vandalism that are bound to occur during a labor dispute when emotions are charged. Action such as this is not significant to commerce. However, when union violence moves beyond this and becomes a pattern of coordinated violent activity, the Federal Government should be empowered to act. State and local governments sometimes fail to provide an effective remedy, whether because of a lack of will, a lack of resources, or an inability to focus on the interstate nature of the conduct. It is during these times that Federal involvement is needed. Let me also note that this legislation has never been an effort to involve the Federal Government in a matter that traditionally has been reserved for the states. Labor relations are regulated on a national basis, and labor management policies are national policies. There is no reason to keep the Federal Government out of serious labor violence that is intended to achieve labor objectives. Indeed, the Congress intended for the Hobbs Act to apply to the conduct we are addressing in this legislation today. The decision to keep the Federal Government out was not made by the Congress. Rather, it was made by the Supreme Court in the United States versus Enmons decision in 1973, when the Supreme Court found that the Hobbs Act did not apply to a lawful strike, as long as the purpose of the strike was to achieve ``legitimate labor objectives,'' such as higher wages. Such an exception does not exist in the words of the statute. The Court could only create this loophole through a strained interpretation of the law. In his dissent, Justice Douglas aptly criticized the majority for, ``achieving by interpretation what those who were opposed to the Hobbs Act were unable to get Congress to do.'' The Enmons decision is an unfortunate example of judicial activism, of a court interpreting a statute to reach the policy result the court favors rather than the one the legislature intended. This is a problem that has concerned many of us in the Senate for many years. We have held numerous hearings on this matter in the Judiciary Committee since the Enmons decision. We must continue to focus on this serious problem until it is solved. It is time we closed the loophole on union violence in America. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.