J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, pursuant to section 3(b) of Senate Resolution 400 of the 94th Congress, I request that the bill, S. 858, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1998 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the U.S. Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes, reported by the Select Committee on Intelligence on June 9, be referred to the Committee on Armed Services for a period not to exceed 30 days. S. 858. An original bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1998 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, in my almost 42 years of service to the U.S. Senate, I have probably had more than one thousand individuals work for me as members of my personal and committee staffs. Among these legions, I have been fortunate to have had a number of particularly capable, dedicated, and selfless men and women who truly went above and beyond the call of duty in assisting me and in carrying out their duties as staffers. Today, I rise to pay tribute to Miss Kathryn Hook, a person who has been with me for just short of 30 years, whose work and efforts have been invaluable, and to many South Carolinians, is as much a part of my office as I am. Sadly, today marks Kathryn's last day on the job. A woman with a warm and outgoing personality, Kathryn first arrived in my office in 1967 and immediately began to make friends not only among my staff, but with our neighbors in other Senate offices. I recall that at that time the late Bobby Kennedy was one of my colleagues, and he had an office adjacent to mine. As he would walk down the halls with his dogs, he would almost inevitably stop into my reception room to say ``hello'' to Kathryn. It is my understanding that later, when Senator Kennedy ran for President, he asked Kathryn if she was interested in working on his South Carolina campaign activities, and as tempting and flattering an offer as that most certainly must have been, commendably, Kathryn chose to stay in my employ. It is a decision that I am grateful she made. For almost three decades, Kathryn has been such a fixture on my staff, she has earned the title of ``Dean of Women,'' and she has made countless contributions to the operations of this office in many different ways. Working at the back of the reception room of 217 Russell, dubbed the ``Dogwood Alcove'' because of the personal touches she has made to her workspace, Kathryn has pleasantly, politely, and warmly greeted probably tens of thousands of visitors to my office, ranging from constituents who have come by to say ``hello,'' to senior American and foreign government officials who are making official calls on matters of policy. In each case, she has demonstrated the famed hospitality of South Carolinians, making anyone who enters my suite feel as though they are a long lost friend, and making sure that they know that they are welcome in my office. Perhaps more importantly, though, is the influence she has had on young staffers who have worked under her. Kathryn is a woman of high and uncompromising standards, and a strong work ethic. In the course of her career, she has passed these commendable qualities and characteristics on to those who have been her direct subordinates, as well as to many other staffers who have worked with her through the years. There is no question that Kathryn has left her mark on an untold number of Strom Thurmond staffers, and that her influence has benefitted these individuals both while they worked for me, and in subsequent jobs. I have no doubt that there are hundreds of people, particularly women, who owe their success in life to the lessons they learned from Kathryn Hook. Of course, Kathryn's contributions go far beyond that of her duties in the reception room and as the personal assistant to my chief of staff. She is the point of contact for any number of South Carolinians, particularly those from her hometown of Florence, who know Kathryn and feel comfortable contacting her on a multitude of issues that range from correcting problems with a relative's Social Security check, to legislative issues. Kathryn's intimate knowledge of office policy, procedures, and history has made her a useful resource for staff members who need advice and guidance on issues or have a question that can only be answered by her institutional memory. Mr. President, Kathryn Hook is a unique and special woman in many different ways, and it is impossible to cite all of the highlights of her career or to adequately summarize the impact she has had in my office. Suffice it to say, her efforts over the years have helped me do my job as a legislator and in assisting the people of South Carolina. Kathryn's long tenure of invaluable service to our State was recently recognized and honored by the Governor of South Carolina who presented her with our State's highest award, ``The Order of the Palmetto,'' in a ceremony held in the Strom Thurmond Room of the U.S. Capitol. Regrettably, I do not have an equivalent commendation with which I can present her, but I hope she knows that I have valued her faithful service, will certainly miss her sense of humor and energetic personality, and that I am pleased to count her among my friends. It is a bittersweet day on which I say goodbye to Kathryn Hook, as not only is it her last day on my staff, but it is her birthday as well. I wish her many more years of health and happiness, and I thank her for her many years of devoted and selfless service. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, it hardly seems that almost 43 years have passed since December 24, 1954, when I first became a U.S. Senator by raising my right hand and taking the oath of office from then Vice President Richard Nixon. Though it is only 527 miles, this is certainly a long way from where I began my career in public service in 1923 as a teacher in a high school in rural McCormick, SC. I am pleased to say that it has been a rewarding and gratifying journey. When I graduated from Clemson College and took my first job, my only ambition in life was to be able to help people. As I worked to educate my students in McCormick--and later in Ridge Spring and in Edgefield--I quickly realized that I could have a greater impact in providing for the learning needs of the children of South Carolina by shaping policy. I ran for, and was elected Edgefield County Superintendent of Education in 1928, and during my tenure in that post, I implemented many measures which raised the standards of education in that county. I also got my first taste of how much impact a person can have through elected office. At that time, South Carolina was an economically challenged place well before the great crash of the stock market which sent the Nation plummeting into the Great Depression. Without trying to sound melodramatic, life was hard back then, the banks were failing, businesses were closing, and people were very concerned about the future. As someone who was eager to try and improve conditions in my home county, as well as throughout the Palmetto State, I declared for State Senator in 1932 and was elected to office. For 5 years, I helped shape policy that guided South Carolina out of the depths of the Depression by, among other things, strengthening education; establishing a rural electrification program; helping our farmers; and by establishing the South Carolina Public Service Authority known as Santee-Cooper. In subsequent years I became involved in a number of different public service endeavors, some of which have been mentioned by others here today in their flattering floor statements about me. One position after another, and though I did not deliberately set out on this path, each job I had--State senator, State circuit court judge, Army officer, attorney, and Governor--seemed to be leading toward the U.S. Senate. To those who want to dedicate a part of their lives to serving the Nation, I can think of no better place to do so than in the U.S. Senate, and my time in this institution has truly been the happiest and most rewarding in my life. Over the past four decades, I have been pleased to have been a part of hundreds, if not thousands, of worthwhile endeavors through my duties as a Senator, and my service on the Committees on the Judiciary and Armed Services and Veterans' Affairs. I knew when I moved up here with my first wife, the late Jean Crouch Thurmond, that I would never earn wealth from my tenure in the Senate, but financial gain was never a consideration for me when I ran for this office. In fact, financial compensation is not why I or anyone else becomes involved in public service. We do it for the opportunity to help others and to give back to the Nation which has provided us with so many opportunities. There is no other job in the world that allows us to have a more direct impact in rendering service than that of a Senator. The work we do here benefits millions of Americans, and how can one not help but take great satisfaction and pride in such important service. Through oversight, legislation, and old fashioned constituent service, each of us is able to help the citizens of our respective States, as well as build a Nation which is stronger and better for all who live here. I am very proud of the fact that over the past four decades, I have had a role in building the finest military force that history has seen. I am proud of the work we have done on the Judiciary Committee which has helped to safeguard the Constitution, keep the judicial branch independent, and provided sound policies to help make our streets safe. Most importantly, I am pleased that I have been able to use my Senate office to help hundreds of thousands of South Carolinians interact with a government bureaucracy that can sometimes be confusing, unyielding, and intimidating. It has been a special pleasure for me to help the veterans who serve this Nation in times of war, as well as the families of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. As I stand here and reflect upon my career, I have nothing but positive memories. During the course of my tenure, I have had the privilege of serving with some of the truly great figures in the history of this Body. I have been fortunate to make many good friends through my service in the Senate. I am often asked how I want to be remembered, and my answer today is the same as it was in 1954, or would have been in 1923--for being an honest, patriotic, and helpful person. I would like to be remembered as one who cares; cares for his family, his friends, and cares for his Nation. Though I look forward to completing this term, when I finally retire in 2002, I hope that if I leave any legacy, it is that answering the call of public service is an honorable and worthy vocation. It is only through the efforts of men and women, regardless of their political ideology, who believe in working for the greater good that we will be able to assure that the United States remains a bastion of freedom, justice, and hope. In closing, I wish to thank my colleagues for their beautiful words concerning my public service. It has been a privilege to serve with such able dedicated, and wonderful people. I thank them for their many courtesies. God bless this magnificent body and the United States of America.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to submit today a Senate resolution proclaiming August 16, 1997, as ``National Airborne Day.'' On June 25, 1940, the War Department authorized the Parachute Test Platoon to experiment with the potential use of airborne troops. The Parachute Test Platoon, which was composed of 48 volunteers, performed the first official Army parachute jump on August 16, 1940. The success of the platoon led to the formation of a large and successful airborne contingent that has served from World War II until the present. The 82d Airborne Division was the first airborne division to be organized. In a 2-year period during World War II, the regiments of the 82d served in Italy at Anzio, in France at Normandy--where I landed with them--and at the Battle of the Bulge. During this tumultuous period in our Nation's history, these brave soldiers served with distinction, as they have done for 55 years. It is only fitting that we honor them. I urge you to join with me in sponsoring National Airborne Day to express our support for the members of the airborne community and also our gratitude for their tireless commitment to our Nation's defense and ideals.

Mr. THURMOND

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

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, this coming Monday, May 26, our Nation will observe Memorial Day. For some Americans, Memorial Day is simply the opening of the summer vacation season. However, for millions of patriotic Americans this day is much more. To us, Memorial Day is the day we pay tribute to those who made the ultimate sacrifice in defending this Nation and our freedoms. Honoring those who died in war is a practice and custom of many cultures and countries. In the United States, tributes to fallen soldiers took place in many locations during the War Between the States. An early observance occurred on May 30, 1865, in Charleston, SC, when a group of school children scattered flowers over trenches in which the remains of several hundred Union soldiers had been interred. Another commemoration occurred in Columbus, MS, on April 25, 1866, when a group of women visited a cemetery to decorate the graves of Confederate soldiers who had fallen in battle at Shiloh. Flowers were placed on the nearby bare and neglected graves of Union soldiers as well. Throughout the North and South, this practice of decorating graves became more widespread. On May 5, 1868, Gen. John A. Logan issued a general order that designated the 30th day of May, 1868, as a day for decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country. Decoration Day, as it came to be celebrated, was first observed that day at Arlington National Cemetery, which held the remains of 20,000 Union dead and several hundred Confederate dead. By the end of the 19th century, Memorial Day, or Decoration Day ceremonies were being held throughout the Nation. In 1971 Memorial Day was declared a national holiday, and was placed on the last Monday in May. Mr. President, Memorial Day services will be held throughout the Nation next Monday, in our national cemeteries, where thousands of war dead are buried. A national service will be held at Arlington Cemetery. Local traditions will be included in ceremonies at the Punchbowl Center in Hawaii. Decorations will be placed in the 114 national cemeteries operated by the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery System. A few other national cemeteries are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense and the Department of Interior. I encourage my colleagues, and all citizens of this Nation, to visit these cemeteries and pay respect to those who have given their life for their country. Mr. President, unfortunately not all activities at our national cemeteries have honored the dead. There have been, unfortunately, instances of vandalism and theft at our national cemeteries. Last month, the Punchbowl in Hawaii, the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific, was desecrated by vandals. Vandals caused over $20,000 in damage by spray painting racial epithets and obscenities on graves, marble memorials, and other parts of the cemetery. Other cemeteries, private and State, were also damaged that same weekend. Last year, at the Riverside National Cemetery in California, engraved grave markers were stolen from 128 graves. Months before that incident, over 500 markers were stolen from a storage facility. The time has come to demand a stop to this type of insulting behavior. That is why I am introducing the Veterans' Cemetery Protection Act of 1997. This bill is a companion bill to one introduced in the House, H.R. 1532. This bill imposes criminal penalties for vandalism and theft at national cemeteries operated by the VA, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Interior. Penalties for vandalism and theft, are consistent with similar crimes against other Federal property. In addition, the bill establishes penalties for attempted vandalism and theft. I am delighted that Senator McCain, a fellow veteran and true national hero, joins me in introducing this bill. Mr. President, as we pause to remember our fallen comrades, it is appropriate that we protect their final resting places. I invite may colleagues to join Senator McCain and me in supporting this legislation. Mr. McCain. Mr. President, I rise today to cosponsor the Veterans' Cemetery Protection Act of 1997, sponsored by my colleague and distinguished veteran, Senator Strom Thurmond. There is nothing more egregious than the desecration of our Nation's veterans' cemeteries. These men and women gave their lives to defend the United States and freedom throughout the world. This act will propose a penalty for theft or destruction of any property of a national cemetery. This is a simple piece of legislation and I hope my colleagues in the Senate will give their full support to this critical measure.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to greatly increase the economic benefits to our Nation from cruise ship tourism. This measure, called the United States Cruise Tourism Act, will implement one of the recommendations of the White House Conference on Travel and Tourism. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Murkowski in introducing this bill. Pleasure cruises aboard ocean-going vessels represent one of the fastest growing segments of our tourism industry. Over the past 5 years, cruise ship tourism has grown by 50 percent and is expected to grow at a rate of 5\1/2\ percent annually over the next few years. When a cruise ship is in port, as much as $250,000 is spent on maintenance and supplies, and cruise passengers spend an average of $205 a day. Although 85 percent of these cruise passengers are Americans, most of the revenues now go to foreign destinations. This export of American tourist dollars is the unintended consequence of the outdated Passenger Vessel Services Act [PSA] of 1886. This act prohibits non-U.S.-flag vessels from carrying passengers between U.S. ports. Unfortunately, since the U.S.-flag fleet is now down to one cruise ship, this restriction makes passenger cruise travel between U.S ports virtually impossible. Today, the passenger cruise industry in the United States consists primarily of foreign flag vessels which, under current law, must sail to and from foreign ports. This prevents many of our mid-coast ports such as Charleston, San Francisco, Baltimore and others from participating in the cruise industry because of their distance from foreign ports. As a result, potential cruise itineraries on the east and west coast, the gulf coast, the Great Lakes and the coast of Alaska have yet to be developed. Mr. President, our legislation would allow our port cities and shore- based tourism businesses to take advantage of this booming area of tourism while providing incentives for the rehabilitation of the U.S.- flag cruise industry. This bill would enact a narrow waiver to the PSA to permit large, ocean-going, foreign-flag cruise ships to carry passengers between U.S. ports. Subsequently, as U.S. companies become attracted to the business, U.S.-flag ships will enter the market. When this happens, foreign vessels would be required to reduce their capacity to make room for more U.S. competitors. This provision also addresses the concern expressed by many of our shipyards. They have complained that the uncertainty over the continuation of the PSA was chilling their efforts to obtain investment in a U.S.-built cruise ship. If enacted, our bill would assure a market for the ships they build. Finally, Mr. President, this legislation in no way affects the Jones Act. The Jones Act is an entirely separate statute enacted in 1920 to protect our cargo fleet and assure that we have a qualified merchant marine in times of war. Also, this measure does not waive the PSA for any trade where there currently exists an American competitor. U.S. ferries, river boat cruises, and cruises on the Atlantic intra-coastal waterway would not be affected. Mr. President, our country has a beautiful coastline and Americans should not have to join the armed services or buy a yacht to see it. Moreover, our tourist industry is one of the most successful contributors to the economic growth of our Nation. We should not permit artificial barriers to inhibit the good work of the people in this industry. This legislation will remove that barrier. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, this coming Monday, May 26, our Nation will observe Memorial Day. For some Americans, Memorial Day is simply the opening of the summer vacation season. However, for millions of patriotic Americans this day is much more. To us, Memorial Day is the day we pay tribute to those who made the ultimate sacrifice in defending this Nation and our freedoms. Honoring those who died in war is a practice and custom of many cultures and countries. In the United States, tributes to fallen soldiers took place in many locations during the War Between the States. An early observance occurred on May 30, 1865, in Charleston, SC, when a group of school children scattered flowers over trenches in which the remains of several hundred Union soldiers had been interred. Another commemoration occurred in Columbus, MS, on April 25, 1866, when a group of women visited a cemetery to decorate the graves of Confederate soldiers who had fallen in battle at Shiloh. Flowers were placed on the nearby bare and neglected graves of Union soldiers as well. Throughout the North and South, this practice of decorating graves became more widespread. On May 5, 1868, Gen. John A. Logan issued a general order that designated the 30th day of May, 1868, as a day for decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country. Decoration Day, as it came to be celebrated, was first observed that day at Arlington National Cemetery, which held the remains of 20,000 Union dead and several hundred Confederate dead. By the end of the 19th century, Memorial Day, or Decoration Day ceremonies were being held throughout the Nation. In 1971 Memorial Day was declared a national holiday, and was placed on the last Monday in May. Mr. President, Memorial Day services will be held throughout the Nation next Monday, in our national cemeteries, where thousands of war dead are buried. A national service will be held at Arlington Cemetery. Local traditions will be included in ceremonies at the Punchbowl Center in Hawaii. Decorations will be placed in the 114 national cemeteries operated by the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery System. A few other national cemeteries are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense and the Department of Interior. I encourage my colleagues, and all citizens of this Nation, to visit these cemeteries and pay respect to those who have given their life for their country. Mr. President, unfortunately not all activities at our national cemeteries have honored the dead. There have been, unfortunately, instances of vandalism and theft at our national cemeteries. Last month, the Punchbowl in Hawaii, the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific, was desecrated by vandals. Vandals caused over $20,000 in damage by spray painting racial epithets and obscenities on graves, marble memorials, and other parts of the cemetery. Other cemeteries, private and State, were also damaged that same weekend. Last year, at the Riverside National Cemetery in California, engraved grave markers were stolen from 128 graves. Months before that incident, over 500 markers were stolen from a storage facility. The time has come to demand a stop to this type of insulting behavior. That is why I am introducing the Veterans' Cemetery Protection Act of 1997. This bill is a companion bill to one introduced in the House, H.R. 1532. This bill imposes criminal penalties for vandalism and theft at national cemeteries operated by the VA, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Interior. Penalties for vandalism and theft, are consistent with similar crimes against other Federal property. In addition, the bill establishes penalties for attempted vandalism and theft. I am delighted that Senator McCain, a fellow veteran and true national hero, joins me in introducing this bill. Mr. President, as we pause to remember our fallen comrades, it is appropriate that we protect their final resting places. I invite may colleagues to join Senator McCain and me in supporting this legislation. Mr. McCain. Mr. President, I rise today to cosponsor the Veterans' Cemetery Protection Act of 1997, sponsored by my colleague and distinguished veteran, Senator Strom Thurmond. There is nothing more egregious than the desecration of our Nation's veterans' cemeteries. These men and women gave their lives to defend the United States and freedom throughout the world. This act will propose a penalty for theft or destruction of any property of a national cemetery. This is a simple piece of legislation and I hope my colleagues in the Senate will give their full support to this critical measure.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to greatly increase the economic benefits to our Nation from cruise ship tourism. This measure, called the United States Cruise Tourism Act, will implement one of the recommendations of the White House Conference on Travel and Tourism. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Murkowski in introducing this bill. Pleasure cruises aboard ocean-going vessels represent one of the fastest growing segments of our tourism industry. Over the past 5 years, cruise ship tourism has grown by 50 percent and is expected to grow at a rate of 5\1/2\ percent annually over the next few years. When a cruise ship is in port, as much as $250,000 is spent on maintenance and supplies, and cruise passengers spend an average of $205 a day. Although 85 percent of these cruise passengers are Americans, most of the revenues now go to foreign destinations. This export of American tourist dollars is the unintended consequence of the outdated Passenger Vessel Services Act [PSA] of 1886. This act prohibits non-U.S.-flag vessels from carrying passengers between U.S. ports. Unfortunately, since the U.S.-flag fleet is now down to one cruise ship, this restriction makes passenger cruise travel between U.S ports virtually impossible. Today, the passenger cruise industry in the United States consists primarily of foreign flag vessels which, under current law, must sail to and from foreign ports. This prevents many of our mid-coast ports such as Charleston, San Francisco, Baltimore and others from participating in the cruise industry because of their distance from foreign ports. As a result, potential cruise itineraries on the east and west coast, the gulf coast, the Great Lakes and the coast of Alaska have yet to be developed. Mr. President, our legislation would allow our port cities and shore- based tourism businesses to take advantage of this booming area of tourism while providing incentives for the rehabilitation of the U.S.- flag cruise industry. This bill would enact a narrow waiver to the PSA to permit large, ocean-going, foreign-flag cruise ships to carry passengers between U.S. ports. Subsequently, as U.S. companies become attracted to the business, U.S.-flag ships will enter the market. When this happens, foreign vessels would be required to reduce their capacity to make room for more U.S. competitors. This provision also addresses the concern expressed by many of our shipyards. They have complained that the uncertainty over the continuation of the PSA was chilling their efforts to obtain investment in a U.S.-built cruise ship. If enacted, our bill would assure a market for the ships they build. Finally, Mr. President, this legislation in no way affects the Jones Act. The Jones Act is an entirely separate statute enacted in 1920 to protect our cargo fleet and assure that we have a qualified merchant marine in times of war. Also, this measure does not waive the PSA for any trade where there currently exists an American competitor. U.S. ferries, river boat cruises, and cruises on the Atlantic intra-coastal waterway would not be affected. Mr. President, our country has a beautiful coastline and Americans should not have to join the armed services or buy a yacht to see it. Moreover, our tourist industry is one of the most successful contributors to the economic growth of our Nation. We should not permit artificial barriers to inhibit the good work of the people in this industry. This legislation will remove that barrier. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, when people think of special operations forces, the image that immediately comes to mind is that of the Army's Green Berets and Rangers, or the Navy's SEAL's. Few realize that the Air Force has a special operations element which is robust and impressive. Air Commandos, Combat Controllers, and ParaRescue personnel have all made important contributions to military operations and National Security over the past five decades, and today, I rise to pay tribute to one member of that community, Major Randy O'Boyle, who is about to assume command of the 551st Flight Training Squadron. For the past several years, Major O'Boyle has been a tireless and diligent advocate as the Deputy Director of Legislative Affairs for the United States Special Operations Command. In that capacity, he has worked closely with Senators, Representatives, and their staffers in order to explain the missions and needs of this unique, joint-service Command. In the process he has helped to give Members of Congress a better understanding of the capabilities of our Nation's special operators and has provided us with the information necessary for us to help shape policy and the future of our special warfare elements. Major O'Boyle was particularly effective in his job as he brought with him to Washington both extensive experience as an Air Force Officer and as a special operator. An accomplished pilot, Randy O'Boyle has literally thousands of hours behind the stick of the Air Force's Pave Low helicopter, an aircraft specifically modified to support special operations. During Operation Just Cause, Randy demonstrated his abilities as a pilot and his coolness under pressure as he flew combat operations in support of Army, Navy, and Air Force special forces personnel as they fought to liberate Panama from the grasp of the dictator Manuel Noriega. Major O'Boyle's experience and expertise was put to good use a little more than a year later during the Gulf War, where he played an instrumental role in helping to plan the coalition forces' first strike into Iraq, kicking off Operation Desert Storm. His intimate knowledge of what is required of both a successful tactical and planning officer provided Major O'Boyle with an unusual insight to how the Special Operations Command functions. His understanding of what the needs of Special Operations personnel are, from the newest member on a Special Forces or SEAL Team to the Commander of one of the SOCOM Theater Commands, assured that he was able to speak knowledgeably and eloquently on literally every aspect of special operations. In addition, his easy-going Midwestern demeanor, engaging personality, and quick-witted sense of humor all assured that he established a bond with those he worked with both in the Department of Defense and in the halls of Congress. As Major O'Boyle leaves Washington and heads west to the famed painted landscapes of New Mexico, he leaves many friends who have enjoyed working with him during his assignments here. Though the ranks of the Special Operations Command are filled with nothing but capable individuals, I am certain that SOCOM Legislative Affairs will miss Major O'Boyle's positive and determined attitude and his effective representation of the Command. Without a doubt though, the young Air Commandos who will come under his command at the 551st Training Squadron will benefit greatly from his tutelage. I am especially pleased to note that Randy will pin on the silver oak leaf of a Lieutenant Colonel on June 1, I hope that he continues to enjoy great success in the years to come.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services, I report favorably 4 nomination lists in the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and the Navy which were printed in full in the Congressional Records of January 28, April 25 and 28, 1997, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar, that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, this budget resolution represents a historic endeavor by the Congress and the administration. For the first time in 28 years, we have agreed on a path designed to balance the Federal budget by the year 2002. The fiscal irresponsibility that drove us into a national debt of more than $5 trillion, with interest payments amounting to 15 percent of our annual Federal budgets, was surely leading this Nation toward a day of economic reckoning with severe consequences. I am delighted that, aided by a strong economy, we seem to be moving toward setting our fiscal house in order. Despite my enthusiastic support for a balanced budget, I must admit that I remain deeply concerned about the state of our national security and plans for funding our defense establishment in this post-cold-war era. When the Clinton administration took office in 1993, it immediately began to cut defense spending. Within the context of the bottom-up review, they cut over $120 billion out of the Future Years Defense Program. Despite this severe underfunding of our military forces, the administration has shown no reluctance to use them. Multilateral peacekeeping operations under the United Nations became the vogue during the early years of the Clinton administration. The debacle in Somalia, where 18 American soldiers were killed in the streets of Mogadishu, awakened the Congress and the American people to the folly of these policies. Despite this concern, less than 2 years later the administration was dispatching U.S. troops to Haiti and then to peackeeping operations in Bosnia. During the first 4 years of the Clinton administration, our military forces were dispatched on more separate deployments than at any other time in our history. The tempo of these operations has put tremendous strain on our diminished force structure and its aging equipment. Indeed, the administration's willingness to employ our military forces in peacekeeping operations without regard to the adverse effects of these deployments has further eroded our capability to execute two overlapping major regional contingencies. Defense funds authorized and appropriated for military readiness, personnel and equipment have been depleted to pay for unbudgeted operations that have exceeded $15 billion since 1993. Furthermore, the unprecedented personnel tempo from these operations has dramatically stressed our military personnel and their families. The administration's proposed budgets have neglected the necessary immediate investment in force modernization, and justified this by projecting significant funding increases in the outyears, when the administration promised to recapitalize our military forces. Unfortunately, these outyears never arrived. For 6 straight years, the administration's projected increases in the modernization accounts did not materialize. In fact, the amounts requested for the modernization accounts were lower each year than projected by the administration in the previous year. In 1995, Republicans gain control of Congress and passed a budget resolution intended to alleviate at least some of the problems caused by the underfunding of the defense budget. Over $18 billion was added to the defense budgets of the 104th Congress. Most of these funds were directed into the modernization accounts which had been so drastically neglected by this administration. During negotiations on the recent budget agreement, I urged our budget negotiators to adopt the congressional budget resolution for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, since those numbers were above the administration's request. I also urged that we accept the administration's request for fiscal years 2000 through 2002, when the projected spending targets were above those in our congressional budget resolution. By agreeing to the administration's spending targets in the outyears, we would, in effect, capture in the budget agreement the elusive recapitalization funds for modernization. This agreement before us today protects our military forces from unrealistic and unwise cuts in defense. I was encouraged that Secretary Cohen has also supported these more favorable, higher numbers for defense. We do not yet know the full impact on the defense budget resulting from the budget agreement and possible effects of outlay shortfalls in the later years of this agreement. However, I remain concerned that even the highest levels for defense considered in this agreement may not provide sufficient funds to adequately sustain over time the personnel, quality of life, readiness and modernization programs critical to our military services, especially if we continue to use funds from the defense budget to pay for unbudgeted peacekeeping operations. Preliminary results emerging from the QDR indicate that the two MRC strategy will remain essentially unchanged. However, even using the administration's higher funding in the outyears, the QDR recommends force structure reductions of up to 130,000 personnel to free minimal funds for essential modernization. Key force modernization programs will also have to be significantly reduced in order to remain within the funding limits of the administration's defense program. I hope that, within the balanced budget agreement, we will provide adequately for our men and women in uniform to defend our Nation. It is clear that we must continue now and in the future to examine the adequacy of the funds we allocate to our national security. At the same time, we must continue to search for ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our defense establishment--especially in the support structure--so that we can achieve savings to devote to the cutting edge of our military combat forces. It is gratifying to me, after almost 42 years in the Senate, to see the possibility of a balanced budget with adequate funds also provided for our national security. It has been worth fighting for. I pledge to continue the fight. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. I planned to speak about 10 minutes on defense, but I did not know that these wonderful accolades were going to come up at this time. I wish to express my deep appreciation to the able Senator from West Virginia, who has been minority leader, majority leader, and every position the Senate had to offer. I guess no man in the history of this country has filled more important positions in the U.S. Senate than Senator Byrd of West Virginia, and he has filled them well. Everything he has undertaken he has done it well. I deeply appreciate the kind words he said today. I wish to thank my able colleague, Senator Hollings. Senator Hollings and I are different parties but we have been here a long time together. We respect each other. And I have had the opportunity to work with him on many matters of various kinds and it has been a pleasure to do that. We have never had an argument that I recall. Although we do not always vote alike, we hold each other in respect. I wish to thank him for his kind remarks. He is, as someone stated, the longest-serving junior Senator in the United States, but after this term, if he is still here, maybe he will get to be the senior Senator. Again, I wish to express to Senator Hollings my appreciation for serving with him and working with him. It has been a pleasure to do so, Fritz, and I thank you. I wish to thank the able Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter. When I came to the Senate I watched different Senators come and go. When Senator Specter came I soon recognized that here was a man of unusual talent, a man of great ability. It has been a pleasure to serve with him. He is a great historian. He can tell many stories about different people on different things and amuse you to the fullest. I deeply appreciate his fine friendship and thank him for his kind remarks here today.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. Lott addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to revise the formula by which the highway trust fund is apportioned and distributed to the States under the Federal Aid to Highways Program. This measure is cosponsored by Senators Coats, Hollings, Helms, Faircloth, and Hutchinson from Arkansas. The current formula was established in 1956 to support the building of a nationwide, interstate highway system. At that time, it was necessary to redistribute the tax revenues from some States to those with large land areas and low population. As it exists now, the present formula is inefficient and unfair. It is inefficient because it is based upon population statistics that were current in 1980. There is no allowance for population shifts in the future and, as a result, high growth areas of the country are left on their own to provide the infrastructure to support growing populations. It is unfair because the disparity in the rates of return creates a policy that, in effect, values a mile of road in one State three times as much as a similar mile of road in another State. Mr. President, the interstate highway program has been an enormous success and is now virtually complete. However, the circumstances which gave rise to the present formula have changed and it is now time for a new one. Our legislation corrects both the inefficiency and unfairness of the current formula. It amends the law to provide that the minimum annual allocation to each State from the highway trust fund be equal to that State's share of contributions to the fund. This formula will allocate funds where they are most needed. The General Accounting Office, in a November 1995 study, noted that highway trust fund contributions bear a high correlation to the need for highway funding in a given area. Moreover, under this new formula, as population grows and economic activity increases, additional infrustructure funding will be available. Mr. President, this bill presents a fair and workable formula for distributing funds under the next highway bill. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to revise the formula by which the highway trust fund is apportioned and distributed to the States under the Federal Aid to Highways Program. This measure is cosponsored by Senators Coats, Hollings, Helms, Faircloth, and Hutchinson from Arkansas. The current formula was established in 1956 to support the building of a nationwide, interstate highway system. At that time, it was necessary to redistribute the tax revenues from some States to those with large land areas and low population. As it exists now, the present formula is inefficient and unfair. It is inefficient because it is based upon population statistics that were current in 1980. There is no allowance for population shifts in the future and, as a result, high growth areas of the country are left on their own to provide the infrastructure to support growing populations. It is unfair because the disparity in the rates of return creates a policy that, in effect, values a mile of road in one State three times as much as a similar mile of road in another State. Mr. President, the interstate highway program has been an enormous success and is now virtually complete. However, the circumstances which gave rise to the present formula have changed and it is now time for a new one. Our legislation corrects both the inefficiency and unfairness of the current formula. It amends the law to provide that the minimum annual allocation to each State from the highway trust fund be equal to that State's share of contributions to the fund. This formula will allocate funds where they are most needed. The General Accounting Office, in a November 1995 study, noted that highway trust fund contributions bear a high correlation to the need for highway funding in a given area. Moreover, under this new formula, as population grows and economic activity increases, additional infrustructure funding will be available. Mr. President, this bill presents a fair and workable formula for distributing funds under the next highway bill. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in support of the CFE Flank Document resolution of ratification. My support of the CFE Flank Document is based largely upon the 14 conditions that the Foreign Relations Committee attached to the resolution of ratification. I am particularly pleased that the Foreign Relations Committee included condition 9, which deals with the Senate's prerogatives on multilateralization of the ABM Treaty. This has been an issue with which the Armed Services Committee has been deeply involved for many years. I would strongly oppose any effort to dilute or eliminate condition 9 from the resolution of ratification. Condition 9 does not take a position, as such, on the ABM Treaty or treaty succession. It simply seeks to protect the Senate's prerogatives in case the treaty is substantively changed. I find it difficult to believe that any Member of this body would be opposed to this objective. In my view, it is a solemn and fundamental obligation of a Senator to consistently guard the rights and prerogatives of the Senate, regardless of which political party may occupy the White House at any given time. Mr. President, although international law is ambiguous on the question of treaty succession, the U.S. Constitution and statutory law is clear. As section 232 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1995 states, ``the United States shall not be bound by any international agreement entered into by the President that would substantively modify the ABM Treaty unless the agreement is entered pursuant to the treaty making power of the President under the Constitution.'' This provision originated as an amendment sponsored by Senator Warner of Virginia and Senator Wallop of Wyoming, two of the Senate's foremost experts on the ABM Treaty. Notwithstanding the administration's assertion that treaty succession is an executive branch responsibility, or any argument that one might derive from international law, the real issue is simple and clear. Only one overarching question needs to be answered: Does multilateralization of the ABM Treaty constitute a substantive change to the treaty? If so, the President has no choice, under the law and the Constitution, other than to submit such an agreement to the Senate for advice and consent. Ironically, those who have asserted that the President does not need to submit the multilateralization agreement to the Senate for advice and consent have not even attempted to answer the one relevant question: Is it a substantive change or not? Instead they have chosen to base their views strictly on ambiguity-laden international law and a simple assertion of executive prerogative. If one carefully analyzes the issues associated with ABM Treaty multilateralization, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the ABM Treaty will indeed be modified in several substantive ways. The conferees to the fiscal year 1997 Defense Authorization Act recognized this in stating that ``the accord on ABM Treaty succession, tentatively agreed to by the administration, would constitute a substantive change to the ABM Treaty, which may only be entered into pursuant to the treaty making power of the President under the Constitution.'' This conference language, which was supported overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis, was the culmination of 2 years of effort by several key Senators on the Armed Services Committee: I have been joined in this fight by Senator Lott of Mississippi, Senator Warner of Virginia, Senator--now Secretary of Defense--Cohen of Maine, and Senator Smith of New Hampshire, as well as other stalwart supporters of the Senate's prerogatives. Why would multilateralization of the ABM Treaty constitute a substantive change? First, because the basic strategic rationale for the treaty would be altered. The ABM Treaty was intended to be part of an overarching arms control regime for regulating United States-Soviet competition in strategic offensive forces. But under a multilateral ABM Treaty, some members will have neither strategic offensive nor strategic defensive forces, and hence no direct stake in the treaty's subject matter. Overall, the United States faces strategic and political circumstances that are vastly different than those that existed in 1972 when the ABM Treaty was signed. The Senate must carefully consider how these bear on the issue of treaty succession. Second, the ABM Treaty will change from a treaty between two equal parties to one in which different parties have different rights and obligations. Some states will be entitled to a deployed ABM system, others will not. The United States will also face four states rather than one at any future negotiation concerning the future of the treaty. This clearly diminishes the weight of the American vote in the Standing Consultative Commission and increases the complexity of seeking changes or clarifications to the treaty. Third, the actual mechanics of the ABM Treaty will be altered by multilateralization since the treaty is largely defined in terms of ``national territory.'' Some items that are regulated by the treaty, including large phased array radars, are currently located outside the national territory of any of the states that plan to accede to the ABM Treaty. Also, those former Soviet States that opt not to stay in the treaty would be legally permitted to deploy an unlimited ABM system even though their national territory was formerly covered by the treaty's definition of Soviet ``national territory.'' Mr. President, these are only a few of the ways in which a multilateral ABM Treaty would constitute a substantive change from the original treaty. The evidence is overwhelming. For the Senate to do anything other than to insist on its right to provide advice and consent to such an agreement would be an abandonment of its rights and obligations. I urge my colleagues to stand together on this important constitutional prerogative of the Senate. The executive branch must not be permitted to circumvent the Senate on a matter of such fundamental importance.

Mr. THURMOND. I need about 10 minutes. I can ask for extra time.

Mr. THURMOND. Whatever suits you.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my able friend from Virginia, Mr. Warner. As the Senator has stated, the Department of the Treasury made an accounting error in 1994 by under reporting $1.59 billion in gas tax receipts for that fiscal year. When the error was discovered in December, fiscal year 1995, the money was credited to the highway trust fund. However, crediting the 1995 trust fund with 1994 money only compounded the mistake because parts of the distribution formulas of our Federal-aid-to-highways program are based on the receipts of the 2 previous years. Consequently, the 1996 and 1997 distributions were severely impacted. Following the adjournment of the 104th Congress, the Secretary of the Treasury moved the income from 1995 back to 1994. Subsequently, the Department of Transportation, which has the duty of distributing the money, adjusted its calculation of the contract authority and obligation authority to be distributed to the States under the program for fiscal 1997. No corresponding correction was made for 1996. As a result, 10 States have yet to receive the obligation authority totaling $140 million for fiscal year 1996. The Secretary of Transportation proposed legislation purportedly to correct this problem. However, this legislation would not restore the money owed to the 10 States, but rather requests an appropriation of $318 million to make up the difference between what States expected to receive for fiscal year 1997 and what they actually received. In the bill before us, there are provisions to restore the $140 million to the 10 States, $318 million to satisfy the expectations for 1997, and an additional $475 million so that donee States would benefit as well. Further, the formula for distributing this last amount of money is not the formula that would apply under the existing authorization, but an entirely new formula contained in the bill itself. This new formula conveniently strips away the one equity adjustment in the ISTEA law that effectively protects donor States-- that is the 90 percent of payments adjustment. This provision of ISTEA was enacted to ensure that no matter how badly a State fares in any year under the underlying formula, it could count on the fact that the distribution it receives would not be radically below the amount it puts in. The Warner amendment simply recognizes that this is supplementary appropriations for fiscal year 1997 and the money should go out under the ISTEA formula in the regular way. This is the proper way to proceed. I commend my friend from Virginia for offering this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services, I report favorably one nomination list in the Navy which was printed in full in the Congressional Record of February 25, 1997, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar, that this nomination lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators:

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I want to state for the record what I believe the Senate just agreed to in supporting the amendment offered by the Senator from Wisconsin that would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of funds available in S. 672, the supplemental appropriations bill, for operations or activities of the United States forces stationed on the ground in Bosnia. This amendment in no way endorses the actions taken unilaterally by the President to extend the presence of United States forces in Bosnia for an additional 18 months beyond the 1-year time frame stipulated in Senate Joint Resolution 44. The President never consulted with the Congress to extend the presence of United States forces in Bosnia, and the Senate has not voted, by accepting this amendment, to approve the President's decision to extend the presence of United States forces in Bosnia until June 1998. The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in October 1996 that United States forces would not be withdrawn from Bosnia until March 1997. They did not consult with the Congress about this short extension, and they assured the committee at the time that there were no plans to extend the presence of United States forces in Bosnia beyond that time frame. However, they did note for the record that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was reviewing whether a continued NATO force presence was needed beyond the March 1997 time frame. The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs promised that the Congress would be consulted prior to agreeing to extend the United States force in Bosnia. In fact, the President assured the American public prior to the Presidential election in November that United States forces would not be in Bosnia beyond the time-frame necessary to safely withdraw. Very shortly after the United States elections in November 1996, the President announced his intention to support a decision by NATO to extend the presence of a NATO force in Bosnia to implement the Dayton agreement. Following the recommendation of the NATO that a NATO presence remain in Bosnia, the President announced in December 1996 that United States forces would remain in Bosnia, as part of a NATO force until June 1998. Once again, I want to emphasize what agreeing to this provision does not do--it does not provide congressional approval for the President's unilateral decision to extend the presence of United States forces in Bosnia beyond the 1-year time frame he announced in November 1995 to the American public. The President has not consulted with the Congress on his decision to extend the participation of United States forces in a NATO operation in Bosnia. The President has not sought approval of the Congress for that decision to extend the presence of United States forces in Bosnia until June 1998. The Senate has not provided its approval, or authorization for the President's decision to extend the presence of United States forces in Bosnia. The amendment merely ensures that U.S. forces are taken care of, until such time as they are withdrawn in June 1998, whether or not substantial progress is achieved in the civil implementation of the Dayton agreement, as the President promised. The amendment does not constitute congressional authorization or approval to extend the presence of United States forces in Bosnia.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, pursuant to section 303 of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1383), a notice of adoption of amendments to procedural rules was submitted by the Office of Compliance, U.S. Congress. The notice publishes amendments to the rules governing the procedures for the Office of Compliance under the Congressional Accountability Act. The amendments to the procedural rules have been approved by the Board of Directors, Office of Compliance. Section 304(b) requires this notice to be printed in the Congressional Record, therefore I ask unanimous consent that the notice be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services, I report favorably 25 nomination lists in the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps and Navy which were printed in the Congressional Records of January 7, 28, 30, February 5, 25, 27, March 5, 11, 21, and April 7, 1997, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar, that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I want to recognize the work done on this treaty by the floor managers--both in opposition and in support of this very important international treaty. Both sides have made laudable arguments in supporting their different positions. This subject is one of great importance. I want to especially commend our able majority leader for the long hours he spent working with both floor managers and the administration. Mr. President, during the Senate Armed Services Committee's review of the national security implications of the Chemical Weapons Convention, I raised concerns about the ability of the U.S. to comply with the treaty obligation to destroy our chemical stockpile within the timeframe stipulated, the universality of the treaty, the verifiability of the treaty, and the administration's interpretation of the provision on the defensive use of riot control agents by U.S. forces. During the committee's hearings on the treaty in August 1994, I took no position on this treaty. I made it clear that the administration would have to convince me that it was in the national security interests of the United States. I have concerns about statements made over the past few weeks, by the President and several administration representatives, that if the United States does not ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention, that we would be aligning ourselves on the side of rogue nations, like Iraq and Libya, and against our allies. Mr. President, in 1985 the Congress legislated the requirement for the United States to destroy its chemical stockpile, and has reaffirmed that decision every year since that time. The Senate agreed to take actions against Iraq for attacking its neighbor, and against Libya for terrorist actions which resulted in the death of American citizens. How can the President, the Secretary of State and other administration representatives liken a decision by the Senate, in its performance of its constitutional duties to provide advice and consent to international treaties, to be aligning the United States with rogue nations? Regardless of the outcome of the CWC, the United States will continue to destroy its chemical stockpiles. Last Sunday, the Secretary of Defense talked about his recent visit to South Korea and the discussions he had about the threat posed to U.S. Forces by the chemical weapons in North Korea. He also mentioned General Tilelli's support for ratification of the CWC because it would reduce the chemical weapons threat faced by his troops in South Korea. Mr. President, North Korea has not signed the CWC. As I read the treaty, none of the provisions will apply to nations that have not signed and ratified it. Only trade sanctions will apply to countries that have not signed it. United States ratification of the CWC will not minimize the North Korean chemical weapons threat which face our United States forces. Mr. President, I cannot support the Chemical Weapons Convention. I appreciate the efforts made by the White House to work out conditions to the resolution of ratification that respond to concerns raised about the treaty made by Members of the Senate. However, I do not believe they go far enough. I remain concerned about the ability of the intelligence community to verify compliance with the treaty. Rogue nations which pose a military and terrorist threat to the United States have not signed the treaty, and most likely will not sign it. I am also concerned about the potential compromise of U.S. defensive capability through potential transfers of chemical defensive protective equipment, material or information under article X and article XI. It is for these reasons that I cannot vote for this treaty.