J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution proclaiming a nationwide moment of remembrance, to be observed on Memorial Day, May 26, 1997, in order to appropriately honor American patriots lost in the pursuit of peace and liberty around the world. This year, the nonprofit organization, No Greater Love, which assists the families of Americans who died in service to their country or in terrorist acts, is launching the first annual ``Proud to Remember'' campaign. The goal of this campaign is to make certain that those who have died in service to our country will be appropriately honored in a patriotic and personal way on this special day of remembrance. In other words, they seek to put ``memorial'' back into Memorial Day. Pursuant to this resolution, on Memorial Day, Monday, May 26, 1997, the entire Nation will be asked to observe a moment of remembrance at 3:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, in honor of those who have sacrificed their lives for us. ``Taps'' will be played at this time across the country to honor our fallen heroes. It is our hope that this moment of remembrance will bring all Americans together in a spirit of respect, patriotism, and gratitude, and also help restore the recognition our veterans deserve for the sacrifices they have made on behalf of our great Nation.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 495, the Chemical and Biological Threat Reduction Act of 1997, offered by the Senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl, and others. There has been criticism of this legislation by Members of the Senate as well as by the administration. The criticism largely centers around charges that it falls short as an alternative to the Chemical Weapons Convention [CWC]. I do not know what the outcome will be of the Senate vote on advice and consent to ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention. This legislation could possibly be an alternative in the event two-thirds of the Members present do not vote for the treaty. On the other hand, it may also complement the treaty, if it passes. I want the Record to be clear, whatever the outcome of the vote on the CWC, I support efforts by the Senate to provide comprehensive criminal, civil, and other penalties for the acquisition, possession, transfer, or use of chemical or biological weapons. I also want the Record to reflect my continued support for the destruction of the U.S. unitary stockpile. I urge my colleagues to vote for S. 495.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, just across the street from the east front of the U.S. Capitol stands the Minute Man Memorial building, which houses the Reserve Officers Association of the United States, one of the most patriotic and self-sacrificing organizations in the Nation. This year marks the association's 75th anniversary, and its origins, history, and accomplishments are all well worth remembering. At the beginning of World War I, America found herself unprepared to enter the fight in Europe because we had an inadequate supply of trained military leaders for our Armed Forces. Confusion prevailed at the War Department while recruiters rushed to select, and the military hastened to train, an officer corps that would be large enough to lead ``Doughboys'' and ``Devil Dogs'' on the battlefields of France and Germany. Despite the lack of initial preparation, the United States' entry into World War I proved to be the decisive factor in securing victory against our enemies and bringing peace to the continent. After the armistice was signed and our troops came home, American military leaders were wisely determined to never be faced with another shortage of commissioned officers, and on October 2, 1922, 140 reserve officers, at the suggestion of General of the Army John J. Pershing, met at the Willard Hotel in Washington, DC. At that meeting, General Pershing said, ``I consider this gathering perhaps one of the most important, from a military point of view, that has assembled in Washington or anywhere else within the confines of this country within my time,'' and the Reserve Officers Association of the United States [ROA] was organized. The new found commitment to a well-trained and equipped force got off to a positive start with the passage of the National Defense Act of 1920 which created a 2 million member ``Citizens Army,'' to be led by a 200,000 member Officers Reserve Corps. However, it was clear that the success of this civilian army and reserve corps of officers would depend entirely upon the patriotic and voluntary spirit of Americans. With this understanding, General Pershing charged ROA with the responsibility to recruit the corps, develop public support for it, and petition Congress to appropriate adequate funds to train these citizen service members. As the United States grappled with recovering from the Depression and getting its economy back on its feet, the seeds of war were being sowed in Europe and Asia, and on December 7, 1941, a surprise attack on American Navy facilities at Pearl Harbor finally pushed our Nation back into another global conflict, World War II. Though still under-prepared for war, we thankfully had an Officer Reserve Corps that had grown to 115,000 and the chaotic rush to recruit officers that took place in the First World War was not repeated. General George C. Marshall said, ``In contrast with the hectic days of 1917 * * * with no adequate reservoir of officers to draw upon * * * we now have available in the Officers Reserve Corps a great pool of trained men available for instant service.'' Clearly, the R.O.A. had done their job. During the war, the ROA suspended its activities as its members were off serving in the branches of the various armed services; once, however, the hostilities ceased and the troops came home, the ROA resumed its activities as advocates for the Reserve forces and a strong national defense. That the founder of one of the first ROA chapters in Kansas City, Harry S. Truman, was now President of the United States signalled that the reserve structure was to grow and grow stronger in the post-World War II/cold war era. During his administration, President Truman ordered his Secretary of Defense to aggressively build a reserve military structure, and the Chief Executive took personal pride in the passage of a strong Armed Forces Reserve Act. It was also during this period that Congress took the unusual step of granting the ROA a charter mandating the organization ``to support a military policy of the United States that will provide adequate national security, and to promote the development and execution thereof''. With this infrequently granted charter, Congress, in effect, was telling ROA that it respected its expertise and desired the association's advice on legislation affecting national security, as well as matters involving the military, both Reserve and Active. Over the years, the ROA has taken its charter and congressional mandate seriously. Its positions are without partisanship and are based solely on promoting a strong defense. The officers and members of the ROA have supported initiatives they thought would strengthen our Nation's military, and opposed those which would undermine America's preparedness. The ROA helped block attempts to eliminate the Coast Guard and Air Force Reserves, and to cut the Navy Reserve in half; and, they stood strong against the Panama Canal and the SALT II treaties, as well as any budget or manpower cuts to our Reserve forces. On the other hand, revitalizing the Selective Service System, lifting the embargo on arms sales to Turkey, selling AWACS to Saudi Arabia, and activating the Reserves during the early days of the gulf war all were supported by the ROA During the Clinton administration, the Association has been out front in seeking postwar benefits for military personnel including medical treatment for victims of gulf war illnesses, and it is most notable that since 1982, the ROA has successfully supported more than $15 billion in equipment procurement and construction for the Reserve and National Guard. Madam President, the ROA of today is a strong and vibrant association whose 100,000 strong membership includes active, retired, and honorably discharged officers of all the services; cadets and midshipmen from the service academies and ROTC programs; and officers of the Public Health Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That more than half of these individuals are life members is an indication of the amount of support the ROA has among the Reserve community, and the credibility it has as representatives of our Nation's truest ``citizen-soldiers''. Obviously, such a dynamic organization requires dynamic leadership and I am proud to note that my friend and fellow South Carolinian, Maj. Gen. Herbert Koger, Jr., USAR, is serving as the president of the ROA this year, an office that is rotated annually among each of the services. Additionally, retired Maj. Gen. Roger W. Sandler, who was Chief of the Army Reserve prior to his 1994 retirement, very capably serves as the association's chief of staff. I commend both these men for the excellent jobs they do, especially for the input they give Congress on matters related to our national security. Madam President, as the Reserve Officers Association prepares to enter its fourth quarter of a century of service, I think it is appropriate to cite another quote by General Pershing, who said, ``It would be false economy to save a few dollars by neglecting commonsense preparation in peace times, and then to spend billions to make up for the deficiency when war comes.'' These are the watchwords of the men and women who makeup the ROA, and words each of us should bear in mind as we approach the 21st century and begin to consider the future needs, roles, and missions of our armed services. Congratulations to the Reserve Officers Association of the United States on its 75th anniversary.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to ask for passage of the Thurmond-Hollings amendment to the pending Nuclear Waste Policy Act bill. The pending bill includes a prohibition against storing commercial spent nuclear fuel at the Hanford site in Washington State. This amendment would include an exemption for the Savannah River site and an adjoining site in Barnwell County, SC. Mr. President, the purpose of the amendment is to level the playing field among all states, should the Department of Energy have to select an alternate interim storage site. There are three sites under the jurisdiction of the Department of Energy which currently have facilities that might be capable of accepting spent nuclear fuel. They are the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington, the Idaho National Environmental and Engineering Laboratory in Idaho, and the Savannah River site in South Carolina. Let me note that these facilities are near their capacity and would require many significant upgrades to take on a commercial mission. The pending bill explicitly exempts the Hanford site from being selected for interim storage. The State of Idaho has a legally enforceable court order prohibiting importation of new wastes into the State. This leaves South Carolina as the only other State with facilities capable of accepting spent nuclear fuel. Passage of the amendment is not intended to impact the overall success or failure of this legislation. It is only intended to ensure that if the Department finds that the Yucca Mountain facility is not suitable for spent fuel storage, that all States would then be placed on an equal footing for the siting and construction of a new state-of- the-art storage facility. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay it on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, in any state, there are certain individuals who make their mark in one or more fields, and in the process, they not only earn personal success, but they also make significant contributions to the place they call ``home''. I rise today to pay tribute to one such man, Edwin Craig Wall, Jr., who was a successful businessman and civic booster, who recently passed away after being struck by a heart attack. During his adult life, Mr. Wall distinguished himself as a leader of business and industry in the Grand Strand area of South Carolina. This region is one of the fastest growing parts of the Palmetto State and represents a well developed and diversified economy that includes manufacturing, tourism, and shipping concerns. Tens of thousands of South Carolinians are employed in good paying, secure jobs, and the revenues that are contributed to our State's coffers from this area are certainly significant. Without question, Mr. Wall helped to create this very impressive picture of economic health that typifies the Grand Strand and Pee Dee. Though Mr. Wall entered the businessworld with a tremendous advantage, his father had built a very successful company called Canal Industries, he chose not to rest on the accomplishments of his namesake. Trained at the business schools of Davidson College and Harvard University, Mr. Wall was determined to find ways to streamline Canal and make it more efficient and profitable. From what I understand, he was more than successful in his objectives, as Canal is now a world leader in the timber industry, as well as becoming a prominent company in commercial development in the Myrtle Beach area. Perhaps one of the hallmarks of a good business person is how much they give back to the community and state which allowed them to prosper. In the case of Mr. Wall, he was very generous in what he contributed to South Carolina and he set an excellent example for other corporate executives to follow. His expertise and insight were valued by many, and he served on countless boards, including those of Davidson College and NationsBank. He was a strong advocate of education and worked hard to ensure that the Palmetto State had a school system that would guarantee that none of our citizens lack for the skills they would require to succeed in life. Mr. President, Craig Wall was a man who had a tremendous impact on life in South Carolina, and though he passed away at far too young an age, his star certainly shone bright. We are all grateful for the leadership and contributions he made throughout his life and career, and his wife and children have my deepest sympathies.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the nomination of Merrick B. Garland to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. I commend Senators Sessions, Kyl, and Grassley for taking this course. Let me state from the outset that my opposition has nothing to do with the nominee himself. I have no reservations about Mr. Garland's qualifications or character to serve in this capacity. He had an excellent academic record at both Harvard College and Harvard Law School before serving as a law clerk on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court. Also, he has served in distinguished positions in private law practice and with the Department of Justice. Moreover, I have no doubt that Mr. Garland is a man of character and integrity. However, qualifications and character are not the only factors we must consider in deciding whether to confirm someone for a Federal judgeship. A more fundamental question is whether we should fill the position itself. Mr. Garland was nominated for the 11th seat on the D.C. circuit. I do not feel that this vacancy needs to be filled. Thus, I cannot vote in favor of this nomination. The caseload of the D.C. circuit is considerably lower than any other circuit court in the Nation. In 1996, the eleventh circuit had almost five times the number of cases per judge as the D.C. circuit. The fourth circuit had over three times as many cases filed. Specifically, about 378 appeals were filed per judge in the fourth circuit in 1996, compared to only about 123 in the D.C. circuit. Moreover, the caseload of the D.C. circuit is falling, not rising. Statistics from the Administrative Office show a decline in filings in the D.C. circuit over the past year. I am well aware of the argument that the cases in the D.C. circuit are more complex and take more time to handle, and therefore we should not expect the D.C. circuit to have the same caseload per judge as other circuits. However, this fact cannot justify the great disparity in the caseload that exists today between the D.C. circuit and any other circuit. This is especially true since the D.C. circuit caseload is declining. In short, it is my view that the existing membership of the D.C. circuit is capable of handling that court's caseload. Mr. President, one of the core duties of a Member of this great Body is to determine how to spend, and whether to spend, the hard-earned money of the taxpayers of this Nation. We must exercise our duty prudently and conservatively because it is not our money or the Government's money we are spending; it is the taxpayers' money. Today, the Republican Congress is working diligently to find spending cuts that will permit us to finally achieve a balanced budget. In making these hard choices, no area should be overlooked, including the judicial branch. Under the Constitution, the Congress has the power of the purse, and it has broad authority over the lower Federal courts. This body has the power to eliminate or decide not to fund vacant lower Federal judgeships, just as it had the power to create them in the first place. The cost of funding a Federal judgeship has been estimated at about $1 million per year. This is a substantial sum of money, and a vastly greater sum if we consider the lifetime service of a judge. We must take a close look at vacant judgeships to determine whether they are needed. In this regard, Senator Grassley, the chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Courts and Administrative Oversight, has been holding hearings regarding the proper allocation of Federal judgeships. I would like to take this opportunity to commend Senator Grassley for the fine leadership he is providing in this important area. Through Senator Grassley's hard work, we have learned and continue to learn much about the needs of the Federal courts. During one such subcommittee hearing this year, the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, J. Harvie Wilkinson III, explained that having more judges on the circuit court does not always mean fewer cases and a faster disposition of existing ones. He indicated it may mean just the opposite. More judges can mean less collegial decisionmaking and more intracircuit conflicts. As a result of such differences, more en banc hearings are necessary to resolve the disputes. More fundamentally, a large Federal judiciary is an invitation for the Congress to expand Federal jurisdiction and further interfere in areas that have been traditionally reserved for the States. In summary, I oppose this nomination only because I do not believe that the caseload of the D.C. circuit warrants an additional judge. Mr. Garland is a fine man, but I believe that my first obligation must be to the taxpayers of this Nation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, by request and with the distinguished Senator from Michigan, the ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 and the Military Construction Authorization Act for fiscal year 1998. I ask unanimous consent that the bills and their accompanying sectional analyses be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a truly outstanding Naval officer, Capt. Billy Lewis who has served with distinction for the past 23 months as Director of the Navy's Senate Legislative Liaison Office. It is a privilege for me to recognize his many outstanding achievements and commend him for the superb service he has provided to the U.S. Senate and to our great Nation as a whole. A native of Pensacola, FL, and a 1969 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, Captain Lewis began his naval career as the damage control assistant aboard U.S.S. Dehaven (DD 727). His follow-on tours of duty included Naval Headquarters, Saigon, engineer and weapons officer aboard U.S.S. Talbot (FFG 4), and he was second in command when U.S.S. Jack Williams (FFG 24) was commissioned in 1983. Capt. Billy Lewis has had three tours of duty in command at sea--U.S.S. Takelma (ATF 113) from 1977 to 1979, U.S.S. Robert G. Bradley (FFG 49) from 1986 to 1988, and U.S.S. Thomas S. Gates (CG 51) from 1993 to 1995. As Commanding Officer, U.S.S. Thomas S. Gates, Capt. Lewis served as Anti-Air Warfare Commander for Joint Task Group George Washington. Captain Lewis' duty ashore has included the Naval Postgraduate School where he earned a master of science degree in management in 1980, and two tours of duty on the Navy staff in Washington, DC. From 1983 to 1985, he served as a program analyst in the Office of General Planning and Programming, and from 1989 to 1991, he served as head of the Program and Budget Development Coordination Branch for the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations. Additionally, he attended National Defense University and graduated from the National War College in 1992. During his tenure as the Navy's Director of Legislative Liaison for the Senate which began in April 1995, Captain Lewis has provided members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, our personal staffs, as well as many of you seated here today, with timely support regarding Navy plans and programs. His valuable contributions have enabled Congress and the Department of the Navy to work closely together to preserve the modern, well-trained and well-equipped naval forces upon which our country has come to depend. Mr. President, Billy Lewis and his family have made many sacrifices during a 28-year Naval career and made a significant contribution to the outstanding naval forces upon which our country relies so heavily. During his illustrious career, Captain Lewis has been the recipient of many awards and commendations including the Legion of Merit with one gold star. He is a great credit to both the Navy and the country he so proudly serves. As he now departs to take command of Regional Support Group in Mayport, FL, I call upon my colleagues to wish him fair winds, and following seas.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the pending nomination of Mr. Federico Pena, who has been nominated to serve as Secretary of Energy. The Armed Services Committee held a hearing on Mr. Pena's nomination last February to assess his views and positions on the Department of Energy's programs that fall within the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee. We felt this hearing was necessary because Mr. Pena has no background in national security matters and, until very recently had no identifiable position on defense issues that Senators could use to assess his suitability to manage the Department's diverse national security activities. I, and other members of the Armed Services Committee, continue to have some concern about the Department's plans to certify the safety and reliability of nuclear warheads, restore tritium production in a timely manner, and maintain the capabilities of the Department's production plants. We also want to see more progress in environmental cleanup at DOE's former defense facilities. These are critical issues that the Secretary of Energy will have to address. I must say that we have not reached complete agreement with Mr. Pena on all of these issues. I intend to work very closely with Mr. Pena to resolve our differences once he is confirmed and I am hopeful that we can make progress on these difficult issues. Another area of concern that Mr. Pena will be required to address is how to move forward with a permanent repository for the Nation's growing stockpile of spent nuclear fuel. Mr. Pena must avoid playing politics with this issue. He should engage the Congress and work cooperatively to develop a credible solution to this mounting problem. I am hopeful that he will do so. There is an inconsistency in the Department's actions with regard to spent fuel. The Department has refused to accept U.S. commercial spent nuclear fuel, even after collecting billions of dollars from U.S. rate payers and being ordered to do so by the courts. However, the Department has paid to ship foreign research reactor fuel back to the United States--to the Savannah River Site in South Carolina--where it will likely be stored indefinitely at U.S. taxpayers' expense. Mr. President, this is an outrage. If the Department of Energy can pay to ship spent fuel from First World countries such as Germany and Sweden, why can't they find a way to accept spent nuclear fuel from Minnesota and California. There is no reason President Clinton should not support the legislation pending in the Senate to fix this problem. I strongly encourage the President to allow Mr. Pena to work with the Congress to move forward with a solution to this problem before more taxpayer's dollars are wasted. Mr. President, despite my remaining concerns, Mr. Pena impresses me as a highly capable manager and I intend to vote favorably on his nomination today. I also want to offer to sit down with Mr. Pena in the coming months to jointly address the issues I have raised. My hope is that he will accept this offer and that we will be able solve these problems for the benefit of the American people.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services, I report favorably 11 nomination lists in the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy which were printed in full in the Congressional Records of January 7, 22, 30, February 5, 6, and 11, 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: In the Navy there is 1 promotion to the grade of captain (Bruce G. Lalonde) (Reference No. 60) In the Navy there are 4 promotions to the grade of captain and below (list begins with Thomas J. Campbell) (Reference No. 62) In the Navy there are 6 promotions to the grade of commander and below (list begins with Timothy F. Archer) (Reference No. 63) In the Navy there are 5 promotions to the grade of commander and below (list begins with Donald L. Beem) (Reference No. 64) In the Naval Reserve there is 1 appointment to the grade of captain (Larry L. Blakesley) (Reference No. 165) In the Army Reserve there are 157 appointments to the grade of Colonel (list begins with Timothy Albertson) (Reference No. 179) In the Army Reserve there are 679 appointments to the grade of colonel (list begins with Steven R. Abt) (Reference No. 180) In the Air Force there is 1 appointment to the grade of Lieutenant colonel (Walter J. James) (Reference No. 193) In the Air Force Reserve there is 1 appointment to the grade of colonel (Alberto B. Zambrano) (Reference No. 198) In the Air Force Reserve there are 200 appointments to the grade of colonel (list begins with Guy E. Acheson) (Reference No. 199) In the Marine Corps there are 563 appointments to the grade of major and below (list begins with Neita A. Armstrong) (Reference No. 203) Total--1,634.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today as we draw to a close the debate on this historic opportunity to adopt Senate Joint Resolution 1, the balanced budget amendment. This debate is about much more than an amendment to the Constitution, as significant as that is. It is about taking action once and for all that will control the size and scope of the Federal Government. I have been deeply concerned during my years in the Senate over the growth of the Federal bureaucracy. The first $100 billion budget in the history of the Nation occurred in 1962. This was almost 180 years after the Nation was founded. Yet, it took only 9 years, from 1962 to 1971, for the Federal budget to reach $200 billion. Then, the Federal budget continued to skyrocket; $300 billion in 1975, $500 billion in 1979, $800 billion in 1983, and the first $1 trillion budget in 1987. The budget for fiscal year 1996 was over $1.5 trillion. With this voracious congressional appetite for spending has come deficit spending. In the past three decades, the Federal Government has run deficits in every year except one. During the 1960's, deficits were averaging around $6 billion per year. The following decade, the 1970's, saw deficits rise an average $36 billion per year. In the last decade, the 1980's, deficits continued to rise and averaged $156 billion per year. So far, in the 1990's, deficits have averaged $259 billion per year. Compare this to 1957, my third year in the Senate, when the entire national debt was less than $275 billion and there was no deficit, but rather a $3 billion surplus. During my service here, there has never been a shortage of legislation creating new Federal programs or of efforts to increase spending in existing programs. It has been too easy for the Congress to pass legislation creating new Federal programs and spending more tax dollars whenever there is a call for Federal intervention. This Nation has drifted from its original foundations as a national Government of limited authority. A balanced budget amendment is the single most important addition we can propose to the Constitution to begin reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government. Mandating balanced Federal budgets is not a new idea. The first constitutional amendment to balance the budget was proposed in 1936. Since the beginning of the 84th Congress in 1955, constitutional amendments to require a balanced Federal budget have been proposed during each Congress. Finally, in 1982 while I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the Senate passed a balanced budget amendment which I authored. Our victory was short-lived, however, because the Speaker and the majority leader at that time led the movement to kill it in the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives. That was our high water mark as we fell one vote short in 1986, four votes short in 1994, and one vote short 2 years ago. Once again, we have a historic opportunity to pass the balanced budget amendment and send it to the American people for ratification. I would note that today the Congress is working hard to balance the Federal budget. However, this is a very recent development brought about by a change in the control of the Congress, and by this body finally listening to the will of the people. We must act to instill legislative accountability that will not waver with the membership of the majority. Our third president, Thomas Jefferson, stated: The question whether one generation has the right to bind another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles of government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves. Mr. President, it is time we make that moral obligation to pay our debts a constitutional one. Not only will we restore order to the fiscal policy of this Nation, we will be making a giant leap toward restoring the fundamental principle of limited authority to the Federal Government. I yield the floor. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I thank and commend the able Senator from Utah for his outstanding leadership in this matter. Why do we need a constitutional amendment? We have not balanced this budget but one time in 36 years, eight times in 64 years. The Congress has failed to perform its duty. Therefore, we need a constitutional amendment that will make the Congress balance its budget. That is the only way I know to do it. A constitutional amendment will demand--demand--that the Congress balance the budget. Several years ago, when I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I authored a similar amendment and got it through the committee and passed it through the Senate and sent it to the House. And who killed it? The Speaker of the House, Mr. O'Neill, and the Democratic leader of the House, Mr. Wright, led the movement to kill it. The Democrats don't seem to want it--certainly a majority of Democrats. There are some good Democrats, and I ask them to join us, pass this constitutional amendment, and protect the people of the United States. We cannot keep on going like this. We are going in debt, debt, debt. The only way to stop it is to pass a constitutional amendment to make the Congress balance the budget.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, Senate rule XXVI.8(b), which requires the submission by March 31 of this year of a report activities of the committee for the previous Congress. In accordance with the requirements, I am submitting the report of the activities of the Senate Committee on Armed Services during the 104th Congress. This report outlines the most noteworthy legislative and other achievements of our committee. Special Report entitled ``Report on the Activities of the Committee on Armed Services of the United States During the 104th Congress First and Second Sessions'' (Rept. No. 105-6).

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, sometimes we forget that it is the citizens of this Nation that serve as its bedrock, men and women who live in our communities and who are committed to making a difference. Today, I would like to share with you examples of two such people, Betty and the late Charles Wannamaker, who were recently honored by the Governor of South Carolina for their civic activities. There is no higher award that can be given a South Carolinian than the Order of the Palmetto, and late last month, Gov. David Beasley presented two of these awards to this married couple who have done much to make the Charleston area of my State a place anyone would be proud to call home. Unfortunately, Dr. Wannamaker's award was presented posthumously, but given the active role he took in local affairs, he was certainly worthy of this high tribute. An elected official in Charleston County for 32 years, Charles Wannamaker was the kind of man who epitomized the term ``civic-minded.'' His wife, Betty, was equally committed to making a difference in her community, and for two decades she served on the Charleston County Park and Recreation Commission. During her tenure, parks and open space in this Lowcountry county grew significantly, and countless families and visitors to the Charleston area have benefited from the many new and excellent parks that the commission approved and saw created. In a separate, but equally fitting tribute, I understand that a new park being built in north Charleston is going to be named in honor of the Wannamakers, a recognition of which they are deserving and one which is truly fitting. Mr. President, the Wannamakers made an excellent team, and through their concerted efforts and service, they made many valuable contributions to the Trident area and to the State of South Carolina. It is my hope that other citizens of the Palmetto State will be inspired by the standard for community involvement these two people set. We would all benefit if there were more people as committed to making a difference as the Wannamakers.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, for more than 150 years, the Citadel has been one of the most historic colleges in the State of South Carolina, and an institution that has produced not only a number of leading citizens, but interesting individuals as well. There is no question that the vast majority of Citadel alumni are passionately loyal to their alma mater, but every once in awhile, a particularly dynamic personality will emerge as a booster of the college. William F. ``Buddy'' Prioleau, Sr., was one such person, a man who was successful in life, possessed a distinctive personality, and an enthusiastic supporter of the Citadel. Sadly, he passed away late last month. Known throughout South Carolina as Mr. Citadel, Buddy was a regular fixture at many of the athletic events, parades, and formal and informal functions associated with that college and the Bulldogs. His unflagging devotion to the school earned him a long tenure on the Citadel's board of visitors, including a term as its chairman, which began in 1969 and only ended in 1994 when he did not submit his name for reelection. In recognition of his long and almost unparalleled service, he was awarded the distinguished title of board member emeritus. Indeed, it is difficult to immediately think of a man more associated with the Citadel than Buddy was. Entering the Citadel in 1939, it was a long road to the ring for young Cadet Prioleau, whose studies were interrupted by World War II. Before enlisting in the Army in 1942, Buddy was already demonstrating a distinguished amount of school spirit by managing the football team, being a member of the Block C Club, and serving as the president of the Bucanneer Club. Putting his education on hold, Buddy Prioleau traded the gray uniform of a Citadel cadet for that of a soldier and he found himself serving in the bloody Pacific theater with the 41st Division. At the end of hostilities, Buddy was able to return to the infamous white barracks of the Citadel and complete his undergraduate education. As was so typical of the veterans of World War II, Buddy recognized the importance of an education, and with his bachelor's degree in hand, he moved from Charleston to Columbia, where he enrolled in the school of law at the University of South Carolina, and from which he graduated in 1949. For almost the next 50 years, Buddy practiced law and enjoyed great success in the legal profession. He served as legal counsel to Governors Byrnes and Timmerman, as well as myself, when I held the office of Governor of South Carolina. Additionally, he served as an acting judge of the Richland County Family Court, was a partner in the firm of Prioleau & Walker, and was very active in the South Carolina and American Bar Associations. All the years that he was working as an attorney, building a career, raising a family, rising to the rank of colonel in the National Guard, and becoming the owner of an inn on Pawley's Island, Buddy Prioleau still made abundant time for one of his true loves, his alma mater. There is not a graduate of the Military College of South Carolina who did not know of Buddy or had some humorous anecdote about him. Without question, he was much beloved by the entire Citadel family, and they paid tribute to him in a number of ways over the years. In 1981, the Citadel yearbook, the Sphinx, was dedicated in his honor, and last year he was awarded an honorary doctor of laws and his portrait was hung in Daniel Library. Two very high honors that are accorded to only a select few individuals. Mr. President, I know that I speak for all of Buddy Prioleau's friends when I say that not only has the Citadel lost one of its most distinguished graduates, but that our State has lost a civic-minded and public-spirited man. My sympathies go out to Buddy's children, William, Mary, Roberta, and Elizabeth, as well as his five grandchildren. He will be missed.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, one of the most unsung professions in the United States is law enforcement. It is a dangerous and demanding career field that offers few tangible rewards, yet it is an occupation that attracts men and women of tremendous dedication and determination, individuals who are committed to making a difference in their lives and jobs. Today, I rise to pay tribute to one such person, Roy D. Nedrow, the Director of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, who is about to end a distinguished career in local and Federal law enforcement after more than 30 years. Director Nedrow began his service in law enforcement as a street cop in Berkeley, CA, during the turbulent 1960's. As many know, that city is the home to a beautiful University of California campus, but at that time in Berkeley's history, the plazas, walkways, and streets of, and surrounding, Cal became a kind of urban battleground. No doubt, it was in this contentious and frequently violent environment that Officer Nedrow learned some very valuable lessons about law enforcement, people, and managing crises, all which would help him throughout his career. After 6 years in local law enforcement, Sgt. Roy Nedrow traded the seven-pointed star and khaki uniform of the Berkeley Police Department for a business suit, a set of credentials, and a job as a U.S. Secret Service special agent. For more than the next 20 years, he handled numerous cases involving fraud, counterfeiting, forgery, and protection. In the process, he steadily climbed the command ladder of that agency, holding a number of positions of great responsibility, eventually rising to the office of Deputy Assistant Director of the Office of Investigations, where he was responsible for managing 1,200 special agents in more than 100 field locations throughout the world. His experience with the U.S. Secret Service gave him invaluable training in managing investigations, people, and budgets, and made him an ideal candidate to head-up a law enforcement agency. When the Naval Criminal Investigative Service was looking for a new director in the early 1990's, they very quickly spotted Roy Nedrow as a desirable candidate to take charge of their agency. Assuming the helm at NCIS in 1992, Director Nedrow moved swiftly and surely to change the public's perception about this agency which had suffered from several public relations misfortunes, and he made turning NCIS into a more effective and streamlined organization his priority. Managing a Federal agency in this era of shrinking budgets, downsizing, and hiring freezes, is very challenging and Director Nedrow had to find a way to continue to meet the many international missions with which his special agents are tasked, particularly force protection and antiterrorism, with fewer available resources. Not deterred by the size of the task before him, the Director established many successful initiatives, a number of which were particularly effective in making NCIS an even better law enforcement agency. During his tenure as Director, Roy Nedrow oversaw the establishment of a Cold Case Homicide Squad which has reinvestigated murder cases previously thought unsolvable, bringing closure to 18 cases and earning 13 convictions. Realizing the importance of reigning in fraud and ensuring that the money of the American taxpayer was not wasted, the Director fought to keep the fraud investigation mission at NCIS. Over the past 5 years, his special agents assigned to pursuing such cases have recovered more than $900 million in procurement fraud, fines, and restitution, helping to cut out fiscal waste and abuse, as well as essentially compensating the Government for what it costs to operate NCIS. Another innovative solution discovered by the Director, was to better integrate Navy Reserve personnel into his agency, providing him with the ability to secure a surge of qualified and trained individuals capable of helping NCIS meet its force protection mission in times of national crisis. Mr. President, anyone who dedicates their life to protecting the people of this Nation from criminal elements is worthy of our thanks, and for 33 years, Roy Nedrow has done just that. He has established an impressive reputation for professionalism and leadership at every level of law enforcement he has worked, and has left the Berkeley Police Department, the U.S. Secret Service, and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service all better places for his efforts. His stewardship as the Director of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service has greatly benefited that agency, and has helped to strengthen the Federal law enforcement community. We are proud of the work he has done, are grateful for his many sacrifices, and wish he and his lovely wife Claudia, much health, happiness, and continued successes in the years to come.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would authorize a modest annuity of $165 a month for a group of surviving spouses of former service members who died before March 21, 1974, and were retired from active duty. The bill would also apply to surviving spouses of service members retired from the Reserves between September 21, 1972 and October 1, 1978. At the time these service members retired from the military, there was no plan to take care of these widows as we have today. The same concerns that moved the Congress to authorize the current survivor benefit plan are true for this group of forgotten widows. The beneficiaries of this plan are all seniors now. For some, this small annuity will make the difference between a life of dependency and a life of dignity and independence. Let us correct this situation and take care of the service members spouses who had the courage to serve their Nation in the troubling time periods of the Korean and Vietnam wars. I have tried to get this legislation passed in previous Congresses only to be frustrated by budget rules and CBO scoring. Mr. President, we must not allow bureaucratic rules to stand in our way because, one fact remains true. The longer we delay, the fewer of these widows there are to benefit from the legislation. I do not want to be remembered as one who forgot this group who have become known as the Forgotten Widows. I urge my colleagues to join me and support this important legislation.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would authorize a modest annuity of $165 a month for a group of surviving spouses of former service members who died before March 21, 1974, and were retired from active duty. The bill would also apply to surviving spouses of service members retired from the Reserves between September 21, 1972 and October 1, 1978. At the time these service members retired from the military, there was no plan to take care of these widows as we have today. The same concerns that moved the Congress to authorize the current survivor benefit plan are true for this group of forgotten widows. The beneficiaries of this plan are all seniors now. For some, this small annuity will make the difference between a life of dependency and a life of dignity and independence. Let us correct this situation and take care of the service members spouses who had the courage to serve their Nation in the troubling time periods of the Korean and Vietnam wars. I have tried to get this legislation passed in previous Congresses only to be frustrated by budget rules and CBO scoring. Mr. President, we must not allow bureaucratic rules to stand in our way because, one fact remains true. The longer we delay, the fewer of these widows there are to benefit from the legislation. I do not want to be remembered as one who forgot this group who have become known as the Forgotten Widows. I urge my colleagues to join me and support this important legislation.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, in any State, there is a core group of businessmen and women who help promote and guide development and economic success. These are the people who serve as the leaders of the private sector, individuals who work in concert with elected officials to create jobs, opportunity, and growth. Lawrence Gressette, Jr., has been one such leader in South Carolina, and I rise today to pay tribute to him and the many contributions he has made in helping South Carolina become one of the fastest growing centers for commerce and industry anywhere in the Nation. Though Lawrence Gressette presides over one of the biggest corporations in our State, he did not begin his professional career with ambitions to become a captain of industry. As a matter of fact, Mr. Gressette started out as a country lawyer, which is about as far away from corporate America as one can get. Born in rural St. Matthews, SC., Lawrence Gressette, Jr. was the son of a well-respected attorney who also served as one of the Palmetto State's most influential elected officials, State Senator L. Marion Gressette, Sr. Early on in life, Lawrence learned the importance of being a man of integrity and dedication, and he approached all his tasks with a keen sense of purpose. These characteristics have helped shape Lawrence's life and are a direct correlation to the many successes he has enjoyed. Whether it was during his days at Clemson, where he played football for the Tigers on scholarship and served as student body president; graduating first in his class at the School of Law at the University of South Carolina; building a successful practice as an attorney; or rising to the position of chairman and chief executive officer of the SCANA Corp., it was a commitment to hard work and honesty that paved the way for Lawrence Gressette to become one of the most influential and respected citizens of South Carolina. While he did not follow his father's footsteps into public service, Lawrence Gressette, Jr. has certainly been a public spirited person, and he has repeatedly lent his time, name, and efforts to many causes, all of which had the goal of making the Palmetto State an even better place to call home. A devoted family man, he served his Nation as an Infantry officer in the U.S. Army, he serves on several boards and committees throughout the State, and he is very active in his community. For his efforts, he has been recognized on several occasions with awards and commendations, and most significantly, he has been awarded two honorary degrees from colleges and universities in South Carolina. Mr. President, Lawrence Gressette, Jr., is about to step down as the head of the SCANA Corp. We are grateful for all his hard work and leadership in running not only one of our State's most important organizations, but for his commitment to helping make South Carolina one of the Nation's most economically dynamic States. We wish him great health and happiness in the years to come, as well as continued success in whatever endeavors he chooses to undertake.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, perhaps one of the best kept secrets in the American medical community can be found not far from this Chamber, the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences [USUHS], located in Bethesda, MD. For more than the past 20 years, this institution has trained in excess of 2,000 doctors who have gone on to serve our Nation either in one of the branches of the military, or in the Public Health Service. Without question, this university has greatly benefited the people and military personnel of the United States, and a tremendous debt is owed to the man who is known as the founding dean of this institution, Dr. Jay Philip Sanford. Unfortunately and sadly, Dr. Sanford passed away in October of last year. To those who willingly risk their lives in order to ensure the security of the United States, there is probably no more comforting thought than to know that should they be wounded, they will receive excellent medical care. Indeed, advances in military medicine have helped to ensure that our service personnel will have access to the very best possible treatment and care no matter where they are located or what the conditions in which they are carrying out their duties. Whether it be the rugged and frigid mountains of Bosnia, or the harsh and hot deserts of Kuwait and Iraq, American military personnel do not want for the most advanced and competent medical care available. Without question, the corps of military medical professionals who have graduated from the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, and the research conducted at that facility, have a great deal to do with that success. The success of USUHS is directly attributable to the guidance and hard work of Dr. Sanford, who truly molded that university into the respected institution it has become. Established in 1972 at the direction of Congress, USUHS was to become a school that would prepare men and women for medical service careers in the Armed Forces and the U.S. Public Health Service. Not only creating a reliable source for military doctors, the university was to stress the instruction of the highly specialized fields of military medicine, preventive medicine, tropical medicine, and disaster medicine. It was the responsibility of Dr. Sanford to help build the university from the ground up, establishing curriculum, securing the necessary books and equipment required of a first-rate medical school, and ensuring that the first class of doctors would graduate from that school in 1980, as required by law. Dr. Sanford rose to the daunting challenge presented him, and in the finest traditions of the military, succeeded in achieving his mission and opening the doors of USUHS on schedule. For his many impressive achievements, as a doctor, a researcher, and an educator, Dr. Sanford was awarded no shortage of tributes and recognitions. Regrettably, space does not permit a complete recitation of all the accolades he was granted in his life, but I think my colleagues would be interested to know that his alma mater, the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School established the Jay P. Sanford Lectureship in Infectious Diseases, and the Jay P. Sanford Professorship; and, USUHS established the Sanford Chair in Tropical Medicine, as well as creating the Jay P. Sanford Distinguished Alumnus Award. Furthermore, in addition to serving as the third president of USUHS, Dr. Sanford was awarded the doctor of military medicine degree [Honoris Causa], the USUHS Distinguished Service Medal, and the Department of Defense Civilian Service Medal. Despite all these recognitions, one cannot help but think that the distinction of which Dr. Sanford was most proud would be the creation and success of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. In the years since the first class of doctors graduated from that school, USUHS trained physicians have supported American military operations throughout the world as well as have made many important contributions to the country through the Public Health Service. There is perhaps no greater legacy Dr. Sanford could have left than this institution which is dedicated to helping others. I do not exaggerate when I say that Dr. Sanford was a man who gave his all to our Nation and has left the United States a better place for his service. He will certainly be missed by all those who knew him, and his family has my deepest sympathies. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the pending nomination of Mr. Federico Pena, who has been nominated to serve as Secretary of Energy. The Armed Services Committee recently held a hearing to receive testimony from Mr. Pena on his views and positions relative to Department of Energy Programs that fall within the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee. The purpose of the hearing was to explore Mr. Pena's proposals for the Department's critical national security programs and to allow him the opportunity to establish a coherent record of his views regarding these programs. The Committee felt such a record needed to be established, because Mr. Pena has no background in national security matters and, prior to last week's hearing, he had no identifiable position on defense issues that Senators could use to assess his suitability to manage the Department's diverse national security activities. I want to state very clearly that the purpose of this hearing was to provide Mr. Pena with an opportunity to discuss his views. It was never our intent to delay his nomination or to interfere with the customary reporting process for his nomination in any way. I worked very closely with Senator Murkowski to ensure that this hearing focused only on the Department's defense missions and did not infringe on the Energy Committee's jurisdiction. Senator Murkowski was exceptionally helpful in coordinating the activities of our two committees and I applaud his leadership in this matter. Regarding Mr. Pena's qualifications, let me say that I find him to be intelligent, thoughtful, and a quick study. If confirmed, I believe he will bring much-needed management ability to the Department--something that has been lacking for the past 4 years. However, the members of the Armed Services Committee take the Department of Energy's national security and defense environmental cleanup missions very seriously. It is our responsibility to thoroughly assess the qualifications of those nominated to head this agency and make public our findings and concerns. Mr. President, for some time now, the Armed Services Committee has expressed its concern regarding the Department's approach to maintaining the reliability and safety of the Nation's enduring nuclear weapons stockpile. We are concerned that the Department's proposed Science-based Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan may unnecessarily put our enduring nuclear forces at risk--both in terms of safety and reliability. We are concerned that the Department's plan to restore tritium production capabilities are not realistic and won't deliver the required quantities of tritium in the timeframe needed by the Department of Defense. We are further concerned that the pace of cleanup at former nuclear defense facilities may not be aggressive enough to meet the Department's stated 10-year cleanup goal. We discussed these issues and others with Mr. Pena and generally found his responses to be informed and reasoned. Unfortunately, on at least two critical issues, Mr. Pena's testimony caused some level of concern. When asked what action he would take in a hypothetical situation where he was informed by all three DOE weapons laboratory directors that a significant safety problem existed in a nuclear weapon in the U.S. stockpile and that the only feasible way to fix that problem was to conduct an under-ground nuclear test, Mr. Pena stated that he would present the relevant information to the President, but steadfastly refused to acknowledge his responsibility to make a test or don't test recommendation to the President. I found his response troubling. Mr. President, as the U.S. nuclear stockpile ages, the hypothetical situation I just described is not only plausible, but one that we could face in the very near future. Unfortunately, Mr. Pena's response was less than forthright. We expect every Cabinet Secretary to present all the relevant information to the President, but in this hypothetical, the Secretary would be required to do more than that. This situation requires that the Secretary of Energy make a recommendation to the President. Mr. Pena's refusal to commit to making such a recommendation raised considerable doubt regarding his understanding of the role that the Secretary of Energy plays in advising the President on nuclear matters and leads me to question his willingness to carry out the responsibilities of the Secretary of Energy. My fear is that Mr. Pena does not recognize that our current confidence in the U.S. nuclear stockpile could diminish rapidly in the near future. The next Secretary of Energy must understand this reality and demonstrate a commitment to take all actions necessary to maintain the safety and reliability of our enduring nuclear deterrent. If he is confirmed, I hope to work closely with Mr. Pena to ensure the Department does not back away from its obligations in this area. I also found Mr. Pena's commitment to restore U.S. tritium production less than satisfactory. For my colleagues who do not know, tritium is a radioactive gas that is required in all modern nuclear weapons in the U.S. stockpile. Without tritium, our nuclear weapons cannot function. Because tritium decays at a rate of 5 and 5\1/2\ percent per year, it must be replaced in weapons at regular intervals. The U.S. stopped producing tritium in 1988 and current supplies are being exhausted. The Department has pursued nearly a dozen different technical options for tritium production--at great cost to the taxpayers--and we are still no closer to restoring tritium production today than we were almost a decade ago. Meanwhile, our supply of tritium continues to degrade and our nuclear deterrent, which has served to protect this Nation for over 50 years, becomes incrementally less effective with each passing year. Congress has consistently directed the Department to move more quickly to restore tritium production. In fact, the fiscal year 1997 Defense Authorization Act required DOE to make a decision on tritium this fiscal year. However, Mr. Pena endorsed the Department's current dual track strategy-- which will not result in the selection of a preferred option until fiscal year 1999--but, he also stated his intent to explore a new, third option. This is a recipe for disaster that will result in further delays and even more wasted taxpayer dollars. The Department should stop studying this issue and move forward with a decision. I believe that such a decision can and should be made this fiscal year and I will look toward the next Secretary of Energy to provide leadership in this area. These are two issues of deep concern to me and other members of the Armed Services Committee. I am looking for Mr. Pena to provide the Senate a clear answer on nuclear testing and demonstrate that he is willing to move more quickly on restoring tritium. It will be difficult for me to fully support Mr. Pena's nomination unless these issues are addressed. Let me state that while I am very concerned about these issues, I remain openminded regarding Mr. Pena's nomination. I have made available in room 228 of the Russell Building a copy of the hearing transcript and Mr. Pena's responses to advance policy questions and posthearing questions. I encourage my colleagues to review these materials. I am certain that they will find them highly useful in making an informed determination on Mr. Pena's pending nomination.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today, we being consideration of a proposed constitutional amendment to require the Federal Government to achieve and maintain a balanced budget. Undoubtedly, it is the desire of every Member who supports the balanced budget amendment to see the Federal budget deficit eliminated so that we may begin to cut away at the Federal debt which is currently over $5.28 trillion. Without a balanced budget amendment, there has been little pressure on the President to submit a balanced budget and on the Congress to make tough legislative choices on Federal spending. I would note that the Republican-controlled Congress is working hard to balance the Federal budget. However, we need a balanced budget amendment as part of the Constitution. As the Congress authorizes Federal spending, we must understand the reality that there are a finite number of tax dollars available for public spending and various proposals would compete on merit and need, not popularity. The balanced budget amendment would instill legislative accountability as the Congress considers various proposals for increased Federal spending. Currently, there is no real check on runaway Federal spending, and there will never be a shortage of legislation creating new Federal programs or efforts to increase spending in existing programs. Without a balanced budget amendment, budget deficits over the long term will continue to rise and the Federal debt will continue to grow. There have been times when gestures were made to bring spending within our means but those efforts were shortlived. Statutes to reduce Federal spending have not been enough. They are too easily cast aside and the Federal Government rolls along on its path of fiscal irresponsibility. I am convinced that without the mandate of a balanced budget amendment, Federal spending will continue to eclipse receipts and the American people will continue to shoulder inordinate tax burdens to sustain an indefensible Federal appetite for spending. In 1950, an average American family with two children sent $1 out of every $50 it earned to the Federal Government. Today, the average American family is spending $1 out of every $4 it earns to the Federal Government. Mr. President, we can trace the debate on a balanced budget amendment back in our history for 200 years. A defining moment may well have been the appointment of Thomas Jefferson as Minister to France. Thomas Jefferson was abroad when the Constitution was written and he did not attend the constitutional convention. If Jefferson had been in attendance, it is quite possible that he would have been successful in having language placed in the Constitution to limit the spending authority of the Federal Government. Upon studying the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter of a change he so fervently believed should become part of the Constitution. He wrote the following: I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution. I mean an additional article taking from the government the power of borrowing. Further, Jefferson stated, To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. Another former President, Andrew Jackson, stated the following, Once the budget is balanced and the debts paid off, our population will be relieved from a considerable portion of its present burdens and will find . . . additional means for the display of individual enterprise. President Harrison described unnecessary public debt as ``criminal.'' Mr. President, early American Presidents and public leaders understood the dangers of excessive public debt. For almost 150 years, balanced budgets or budget surpluses were the fiscal norm followed by the Federal Government. The unwritten rule followed by Presidents and legislators until recently in our Nation's history was to achieve balanced budgets except in wartime. Unfortunately, the role and the size of the Federal Government has grown out of control. In the past three decades, the Federal Government has run deficits in every year except one. Further, the Federal Government has run deficits in 56 of the last 64 years. The Federal debt has grown as deficits have continued and the debt is now over $5.28 trillion. It took this Nation over 200 years to run the first trillion dollar debt yet we have recently been adding another trillion dollars to our debt about every 5 years. I have been deeply concerned during my time in the Senate over the growth of the Federal Government. It has been too easy for the Congress to pass legislation creating new Federal programs and spending more tax dollars whenever there is a call for Federal intervention. Of course, the Federal Government has an appropriate role to protect the citizens of this Nation, but it is not realistic to believe that Washington should respond to every perceived problem with a new Federal approach. This Nation has drifted from its original foundations as a national government of limited authority. I believe the adoption of a balanced budget amendment will do much to return us to a more limited Federal Government and decentralized authority and the mandates of such an amendment will increase legislative accountability. A balanced budget amendment is the single most important addition we can propose to the Constitution to begin reducing the size of the Federal Government. Mr. President, we have seen the national debt and deficits rise in large part because the Federal Government has grown. The first $100 billion budget in the history of the Nation occurred in 1962. This was almost 180 years after the Nation was founded. Yet, it took only 9 years, from 1962 to 1971, for the Federal budget to reach $200 billion. Then, the Federal budget continued to skyrocket; $300 billion in 1975, $500 billion in 1979, $800 billion in 1983, and the first $1 trillion budget in 1987. The budget for fiscal year 1996 was over $1.5 trillion. Federal spending has gripped Congress as a narcotic but it is time to break the habit and restore order to the fiscal policy of this Nation. Two years ago, we were only one vote short of the votes needed to pass the balanced budget amendment. We now have another opportunity to send the balanced budget amendment to the American people for ratification. I hope we do not fail the American people on this historic opportunity and instead present to the States our proposed amendment to mandate balanced Federal budgets. It is time to act to secure the future for all Americans. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.