J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

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

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on April 7, 2001, Robbie Callaway, Senior Vice President for Boys & Girls Clubs of America, was honored with the organization's highest award for professional service: the Thomas G. Garth Character and Courage Award. Thomas G. Garth served as president of Boys & Girls Clubs of America from 1988 until his death in 1996. It was under his leadership that Boys & Girls Clubs began their aggressive outreach movement into America's most distressed communities and evolved into one of our Nation's premier youth development organizations. It was Tom's dream that every disadvantaged youth in America have access to a Boys & Girls Club. The Thomas G. Garth Character and Courage Award is presented each year to the professional in the Boys & Girls Clubs movement that best exemplifies the qualities of character and courage, the very qualities that made Tom Garth an extraordinary leader and role model. Those of us who are fortunate to have known Robbie Callaway for many years are not surprised by his receipt of the Thomas G. Garth Character and Courage Award. Character and courage have defined his service to the Nation's youth. Not only is Robbie's enthusiasm contagious, but he also sets an example for others to follow. Robbie has dedicated himself to ensuring that every one of our Nation's youth is given an opportunity at a better life. Countless young people and communities throughout America have benefitted as a result. The progress that Boys & Girls Clubs of America have made in public housing, Native American lands, and other inner-city and rural communities is due in large part to his relentless spirit and his unwillingness to take ``no'' for an answer. He believes in his heart, as did Tom Garth, that it is Boys & Girls Clubs of America's obligation to reach every child in need and at-risk. Robbie is also a founding board member of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, where he currently serves as chairman- elect. As a result of the National Center's extensive relationship with Federal, State, and local law enforcement, along with corporate America, it is the leading child safety organization in America. The National Center also has a strong working partnership with Boys & Girls Clubs of America. Together, these two fine organizations strive to keep our Nation's youth out of harm's way. Robbie has received numerous awards throughout his career. Yet he will tell you his greatest accomplishment is raising, along with his wife Sue, two fine children, Adam and Maureen. The United States of America is a better place because of people purchase Robbie Callaway. His selfless contributions have impacted the lives of this Nation's youth and will continue to do so for generations to come. We owe him a debt of gratitude.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the dedicated service of my good friend and committed public servant, Chief Robert E. Langston, upon his retirement from the U.S. Park Police Force. After 35 years on the force, including the last 10 years as chief, Robert Langston stepped down earlier this month a day prior to his 60th birthday, the mandatory retirement age for all Park Police officers. He leaves behind an impressive legacy of dedication, integrity, commitment, and success as the leader of one of the oldest law enforcement agencies in the country. Robert Langston was born and raised in Washington, D.C., and joined the Park Police shortly after he graduated from Florida State University at the young age of 24 years old. Through hard work and dedication he gradually ascended to the impressive rank of U.S. Park Police Chief. As chief, he oversaw the policing of the national park grounds in Washington, New York, and San Francisco. He worked tirelessly and sacrificed much in order to ensure the safety of the thousands who used or visited these grounds, and the agency flourished under his leadership. Chief Langston consistently went above the call of duty to make sure all Americans, and anyone visiting our Nation from abroad, would be safe while on the national park grounds. He is to be commended for his exemplary service to the U.S. Park Police Department, and to this fine Nation. The force is stronger because of Chief Langston's dedicated leadership, and he can take great pride in all that he accomplished during his noteworthy tenure. Chief Langston has made countless contributions to the U.S. Park Police Department during his distinguished career. He has been a friend, teacher, and a model of excellence to the many fine men and women who had the honor to serve alongside Chief Langston. Bob Langston is a great man and a truly great American. He was an asset to the U.S. Park Police, and I am certain that though his presence will be missed, his influence will continue for generations to come.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Video Teleconferencing Improvements Act. This bill will expand the use of video teleconferencing in criminal court matters, and promote a safer and more efficient federal court system. The federal courtroom, just like all society, is benefiting from constant advances in technology today. Video teleconferencing is one example of this movement. It allows proceedings to operate more efficiently and at lower costs, while maintaining many of the benefits of communicating in person. The use of video teleconferencing is becoming increasingly common in federal district and appellate courts for various proceedings, such as prisoner civil rights complaints and certain appellate matters. The state courts are also benefiting from video technology in many ways, including for pretrial criminal proceedings. However, in federal court, the use of this technology in criminal matters is almost nonexistent because the federal rules apparently require the defendant's physical presence in court. This legislation would amend the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to allow the judge to hold pretrial proceedings, including the defendant's arraignment and initial appearance, through video teleconferencing. It would also allow for the sentencing to occur in this manner in special, limited circumstances. Today, some districts have extremely high volumes of criminal cases that they must process. This is especially true in the Border States, where the number of immigrants who are caught crossing the Mexican Border or committing crimes in the United States has skyrocketed and continues to rise. This creates a great burden and expense on the Marshals Service, which must transport the prisoners, often for very long distances from the holding facility to a far away courthouse. This type of transportation in creases the possibility for escape and can create a security risk for law enforcement, court personnel, and the public. Pretrial proceedings are often very short and routine. If they can be conducted through video, the inmates can stay at the secure facility, greatly decreasing risk and costs. If Marshals could spend less time on other duties, such as apprehending dangerous fugitives from justice. Moreover, this process would help the courts efficiently manage their increasing caseloads. Similarly, I believe that video teleconferencing could be very important for sentencing defendants in certain limited circumstances. This is especially true when there is a safety or security risk in transporting the prisoner to the courthouse. For example, in an ongoing case in South Carolina, a dangerous repeat offender was sentenced to a long prison term at the maximum security federal prison in Florence, Colorado. However, the court of appeals required that he be sentenced again. The Federal Bureau of Prisons considered him a danger to transport. He had a long history of psychiatric problems and violent behavior, including repeatedly assaulting prison guards and other inmates. In this case, he had even threatened the sentencing judge and the Assistant U.S. Attorney. Rather than transporting the prisoner back to South Carolina, the judge resentenced him by video teleconferencing. However, the case is now on appeal, and there is legal precedent not allowing this practice. In my view, there is simply no reason why a judge should be prohibited from sentencing by video in these circumstances. This legislation is not an attempt to eliminate criminal defendants from appearing in person before the judge. Defendants would still be in court for all phases of the trial, which this bill would not effect. In fact, criminal trials must be conducted in person because the accused has the constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him. Further, even with these changes, the judge would maintain the authority to hold any pretrial or sentencing proceeding in person if he wished. This bill would simply give him the authority to conduct certain routine matters, other than the trial, through video teleconferencing. The Rules Committee of the Judicial Conference has been considering this video technology for some time, and recently proposed some of the specific changes that are included in this legislation. I hope they will provide judges discretion to conduct pretrial proceedings by video teleconference, and go even further than the formal proposals that they have considered to date. My legislation will help eliminate legal impediments to the reasonable use of video teleconferencing and help courts take advantage of new technology. These reforms are needed today. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Video Teleconferencing Improvements Act. This bill will expand the use of video teleconferencing in criminal court matters, and promote a safer and more efficient federal court system. The federal courtroom, just like all society, is benefiting from constant advances in technology today. Video teleconferencing is one example of this movement. It allows proceedings to operate more efficiently and at lower costs, while maintaining many of the benefits of communicating in person. The use of video teleconferencing is becoming increasingly common in federal district and appellate courts for various proceedings, such as prisoner civil rights complaints and certain appellate matters. The state courts are also benefiting from video technology in many ways, including for pretrial criminal proceedings. However, in federal court, the use of this technology in criminal matters is almost nonexistent because the federal rules apparently require the defendant's physical presence in court. This legislation would amend the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to allow the judge to hold pretrial proceedings, including the defendant's arraignment and initial appearance, through video teleconferencing. It would also allow for the sentencing to occur in this manner in special, limited circumstances. Today, some districts have extremely high volumes of criminal cases that they must process. This is especially true in the Border States, where the number of immigrants who are caught crossing the Mexican Border or committing crimes in the United States has skyrocketed and continues to rise. This creates a great burden and expense on the Marshals Service, which must transport the prisoners, often for very long distances from the holding facility to a far away courthouse. This type of transportation in creases the possibility for escape and can create a security risk for law enforcement, court personnel, and the public. Pretrial proceedings are often very short and routine. If they can be conducted through video, the inmates can stay at the secure facility, greatly decreasing risk and costs. If Marshals could spend less time on other duties, such as apprehending dangerous fugitives from justice. Moreover, this process would help the courts efficiently manage their increasing caseloads. Similarly, I believe that video teleconferencing could be very important for sentencing defendants in certain limited circumstances. This is especially true when there is a safety or security risk in transporting the prisoner to the courthouse. For example, in an ongoing case in South Carolina, a dangerous repeat offender was sentenced to a long prison term at the maximum security federal prison in Florence, Colorado. However, the court of appeals required that he be sentenced again. The Federal Bureau of Prisons considered him a danger to transport. He had a long history of psychiatric problems and violent behavior, including repeatedly assaulting prison guards and other inmates. In this case, he had even threatened the sentencing judge and the Assistant U.S. Attorney. Rather than transporting the prisoner back to South Carolina, the judge resentenced him by video teleconferencing. However, the case is now on appeal, and there is legal precedent not allowing this practice. In my view, there is simply no reason why a judge should be prohibited from sentencing by video in these circumstances. This legislation is not an attempt to eliminate criminal defendants from appearing in person before the judge. Defendants would still be in court for all phases of the trial, which this bill would not effect. In fact, criminal trials must be conducted in person because the accused has the constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him. Further, even with these changes, the judge would maintain the authority to hold any pretrial or sentencing proceeding in person if he wished. This bill would simply give him the authority to conduct certain routine matters, other than the trial, through video teleconferencing. The Rules Committee of the Judicial Conference has been considering this video technology for some time, and recently proposed some of the specific changes that are included in this legislation. I hope they will provide judges discretion to conduct pretrial proceedings by video teleconference, and go even further than the formal proposals that they have considered to date. My legislation will help eliminate legal impediments to the reasonable use of video teleconferencing and help courts take advantage of new technology. These reforms are needed today. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, as the Senate debates President Bush's first budget proposal, I want to join my colleagues in congratulating the President on his commitment to revitalize our Nation's economy and national security. The President's budget proposal is fiscally responsible and represents a prudent first step as he organizes his administration and focuses on the issues facing both the Nation and the World. I especially want to recognize the President's challenge to Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to conduct a strategic review of our national security requirements. This review is long overdue and I anticipate it will bring about significant changes to our national security strategy and our military services. I have been privileged to be a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee since 1959. During this period I have been a witness to both the greatness and tragedy of military service. After the tragic conflict in Vietnam, we saw a sharp decline in the readiness and morale of our armed forces. The Reagan era brought about a revitalization in our armed forces that culminated in the end of the Cold War and the great victory in the desert of Iraq. Now again, our military is showing its age and neglect. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are still the best, but the equipment and facilities are wearing out because of under funding and overuse. In a recent interview on the state of our Armed Forces, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shelton, stated: ``If we go back 15 to 16 years, America was spending roughly 6.5 percent of our gross domestic product on defense. Today we spend right at 3 percent. Put another way, if we were spending the same percent of our national wealth, our GDP, on the armed forces today that we were spending in 1985, the defense budget would be double what it is today. The Army in 1989 had 18 divisions. Today it's down to 10. The Air Force had 36 fighter wings. Today it has 20. The Navy had just short of 600 ships. Today it's got just over 300 ships. We have taken 700,000 out of the active force. That is greater than the armed forces of the UK, Germany, the Danes and the Dutch put together. So we have restructured, and we have downsized. As an example, our Army is right now the seventh- largest in the world.'' General Shelton's comments show that we have adjusted to the new world, although in my judgement we have gone too far both in terms of force structure and funding. I am especially concerned over the shortfall in funding over the past ten years. We have frequently heard about the aging equipment and lack of spare parts. I would like to focus on our aging military facilities. According to the GAO, in 1992 the military had accumulated an estimated $8.9 billion in deferred facility maintenance. By 1998, that had grown to $14.6 billion. The backlog now exceeds $16 billion and it is still growing. If we do not reverse this trend, our military installations will continue to deteriorate and quality of life and readiness will continue to decline. President Bush has proposed a $14.2 billion increase over last year's defense budget. Although this is significant, it will not provide the necessary resources to fix the immediate readiness shortfall identified to the Armed Services Committee by the military services. Chairman Warner's amendment to increase the defense budget by another $8.5 billion is a modest increase to fund critical manpower and readiness issues. In my judgement, it is a down payment to the increase that the President will seek after Secretary Rumsfeld completes his strategic review. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and prove our support to the men and women who wear the uniforms of our military services.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to S. 27, the so-called Campaign Finance Reform bill. My opposition is based on three conclusions I have reached regarding this measure. First, the legislation is unconstitutional; second, the legislation will hinder rather than encourage citizens from participating in the political process; and third the legislation will push more political money into the shadows of undisclosed special interest spending. This bill, on its face is unconstitutional on at least three counts. The measure restricts free speech, the right of association, and the right of persons to petition their government for redress of grievances. The underlying premise of their campaign finance reform legislation is the proponents claim that there is too much in political campaigns, and the increasing reliance on and influence of third-party interests groups. While there is a legitimate concern regarding the fairness of elections and the need to eliminate the actual or perceived buying and selling of elections, this bill take the wrong approach. To address concerns of the reality or appearance of improper influence stemming from candidates dependence on larger campaign contributions, a number of campaign and election reforms were enacted during the 1970s. These reforms imposed limits on contributions, required disclosure of campaign receipts and expenditures, and set up the Federal Election Commission, FEC, as a central administrative and enforcement agency. This framework has been upheld by the Courts and works well. Campaign contributions and expenditures are fully reported, giving all voters the opportunity to know the basis of support of a particular candidate. I supported the amendment to raise the limit of campaign contributions. The increase in the limit was appropriate, given the limit was established in 1974, and inflation has lessened the value of the 1974 dollar to about 35 cents. More importantly, regulated and disclosed contributions of a reasonable amount assist candidates in publicizing their message. Democracy can only be improved by more political discussion and participation. Yet, supporters of this bill apparently seek to reduce political funding and associated political discourse. The bill's limitations on political expenditures are similar to prior expenditure limits struck down by the Supreme Court's landmark Buckely v. Valeo ruling [424 U.S. 1 (1976)]. In that case, the Supreme Court invalidated limitations on independent expenditures, on candidate expenditures from personal funds, and on overall campaign expenditures. These provisions, the Court ruled, placed direct and substantial restrictions on the ability of candidates, citizens, and associations to engage in protected First Amendment rights. The legislation that will likely be adopted by the Senate includes limitations on independent groups who wish to publicize and advocate their positions on matters of public policy. Attempts to regulate political speech, even the requirement for limited disclosure, will have a chilling effect on issue oriented speech. The bill restricts the right of citizens to associate and coordinate their activities of the group as a political party. The limitations on party funding and activities extend to voter registration drives, get- out-the-vote drives, and public communications, including advertising, mass mailings and phone banks. The purpose of political parties is to identify and elect candidates who support policy choices shared by members of the party. Members of political parties have a constitutional right to gather together and to petition their government for the redress of grievances. The pending legislation restricts the ability to associate, to raise needed funds for legitimate party activities, and to adequately publish the message of the party. Again, this impedes political participation and only helps incumbents maintain their advantage in the electoral process. The bill will have the consequence of pushing political spending from the regulated and disclosed ``hard money'' side into the unregulated, undisclosed world of third-party independent expenditures. I do not believe this measure will reduce the amount of money spent on campaigns. But I do fear it will result in candidates losing control of their own campaigns. As direct candidate and party support are limited, I believe there will be a move by independent groups to exercise their constitutional right to speak on political matters. Candidates and parties will be left defenseless against the onslaught of such advertising. This will likely result in less open political discourse, and an increase in the ``noise'' level of attack ads and unsubstantiated political claims. My campaign days are over. I have no personal interest in the manner in which campaigns will be financed or run in the future. But I do have an interest in defending the liberty and constitutional rights of my constituents. This legislation restricts those rights and will discourage their participation in the political process. For these reasons I will not support final passage of S. 27. I express my appreciation to the Senate, for the manner in which the debate has been conducted. In particular, I thank the Chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. McConnell, for his leadership in protecting the Constitution and defending the rights and liberties of all Americans.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Colonel Wilson A. ``Bud'' Shatzer, who after thirty-one years of dedicated service to the nation and the military, will retire from the United States Army on April 1, 2001. Colonel Shatzer's career began following his graduation from Eastern Washington University in 1970 when he was commissioned a Second Lieutenant in the Armor Branch. Over the past three decades, his assignments have included a variety of both command and staff positions, and throughout his military career, Colonel Shatzer consistently distinguished himself in all his assignments. Furthermore, whether a newly commissioned Second Lieutenant or a seasoned Colonel, this officer always demonstrated one of the most important qualities an officer should possess, a deep-seated concern for his soldiers regardless of their rank. As a leader and teacher Colonel Shatzer proved himself to be a willing mentor of young officers and enlisted men, and in the process, he helped to shape the successful careers of soldiers throughout the Army. Many of us came to know Colonel Shatzer during his five-year tour as Executive Officer, Army Legislative Liaison. His professionalism, mature judgment, and sound advice earned him the respect and confidence of members of the Army Secretariat and the Army Staff. While dealing with Members of Congress and Congressional staff, the Department of Defense, and the Joint Staff, Colonel Shatzer's abilities as an officer, analyst and advisor were of benefit to the Army and to those with whom he worked in the Legislative Branch. For the past thirty-one years, Colonel Shatzer has selflessly served the Army and our Nation professionally, capably and admirably. Through his personal style of leadership, he has had a positive impact on the lives of not only the soldiers who have served under him, but of the families of these soldiers, as well as the civilian employees of the Army who have worked with and under this officer. I am sure that all of those in the Senate who have worked with Colonel Shatzer join me today in wishing both he and his wife, Annie, health, happiness, and success in the years ahead.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to create a National Museum for the United States Army. This endeavor is important to every American, every veteran, and all Members of Congress. I would be greatly pleased to have my colleagues join me in sponsoring this worthy legislation. Our great Capital City and its surrounding countryside host every kind of museum imaginable, but not one for one of this Nation's greatest institutions, the United States Army. Area museums serving the American public today are all worthy museums, but this great city and this great Nation are sadly without a museum for its citizen-soldiers who have sacrificed so much for their country. The purpose of the legislation which I introduce today is to designate a place for the Army Museum to be built to preserve, interpret, and display the important role the Army has played in the history of our Nation. What I propose is not new. Over the past two decades many sites have been suggested and most are unsatisfactory because they have unrealistic development requirements, because their locations are unsuitable for such an esteemed building, or they lacked an appropriate Army setting. Since 1983, the process of choosing a site for the Army Museum has been a long cumbersome undertaking. A site selection committee was organized and it developed a list of 17 criteria which any candidate site is required to possess before it was to be selected as home to the Army Museum. Among other requirements, these criteria required such things as: an area permitting movement of large military vehicles for exhibits and tractor trailer trucks for shipments, commanding and aesthetically pleasing vistas, positive impact on environment, closeness to public transportation, closeness to a Washington Tourmobile route, convenience to Fort Myer for support by the 3rd Infantry, The Old Guard, accessibility by private automobile, adequate parking for 150 staff and official visitors, adequate parking for a portion of the 1,000,000 visitors per year that do not use public transportation, food service for staff and visitors, area low in crime and safe for staff and visitors, suitable space, 300,000 square feet, for construction, a low water table, good drainage and no history of flooding and suitability for subterranean construction. Since 1984, more than 60 sites have been studied, yet only a handful has been worthy of any serious consideration. The most prominent recent site suggestions have included Carlisle, Pennsylvania; Gettysburg, Pennsylvania; the Washington Navy Yard; and Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Of these sites, most clearly have characteristics which are directly contrary to the established criteria for site selection. The extraordinary distance of Carlisle from Washington speaks for itself. The suggestion that the Army locate its museum in Washington's Navy Yard is also directly contrary to prerequisites for site selection. The Washington Navy Yard is situated in a dangerous and difficult-to-get-to part of Washington, on the Anacostia River and on a precarious 50-year flood plain. Because this area floods so often, a ``Washington Navy Yard Army Museum'', let me pause to repeat this awkward location a ``Washington Navy Yard Army Museum'', might well suffer the embarrassment of being closed ``due to flooding.'' This would not be the way America should honor Army history. The Navy Yard over the years has become less military in character and a patchwork home to various government offices. To locate the Army Museum in an old Navy yard, which is sometimes under water, would send a clear signal to visitors that choosing a home to their history was nothing more than an afterthought. In 1991, the Deputy Secretary of Defense directed that the site searches include the Mount Vernon Corridor as a possible location for the Army Museum. Fort Belvoir quickly became a very attractive location. Fort Belvoir offers a 48-acre site, only 5 minutes from Interstate 95, which is traveled by over 300 million vehicles annually, it is 3 minutes from the Fairfax County parkway, and is served by Metro Bus, the Fort Belvoir site fronts on US Route 1, Richmond Highway and is next to the main gate of Fort Belvoir. The Fort Belvoir site is also a winner historically. It is on a portion of General George Washington's properties when he was Commander in Chief of the Continental Army. It is located on the historical heritage trail of the Mount Vernon Estate, The Grist Mill, Woodlawn Plantation, Pohick Church, and Gunston Hall. Situating the Army Museum at Fort Belvoir is a natural tie to a long established military and historic installation that has already been approved by the National Capitol Planning Commission to be used for community activities, which includes museums, as a part of the Fort Belvoir Master Plan. The Fort Belvoir site meets all 17 criterions originally established by the Army. The bill I am introducing today names Fort Belvoir as the site for the Army Museum. Fort Belvoir is the best location in the Washington area to host an Army museum. Army veterans want to remember and show their contribution to history in an Army setting and culture in which they themselves once served. Fort Belvoir is the perfect place to do this and it qualifies on every criterion established in 1983 by the Army's Site Selection Committee. For Belvoir is Army and should host Army history. Therefore, I ask that my colleagues support this bill and bring the 18-year search for a home for the Army Museum to a close by selecting a worthy home for one of this Nation's greatest institutions. Thomas Jefferson wrote to John Adams in 1817, ``A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable.'' I am pleased to see that the National U.S. Army Museum is a task for this Congress at the beginning of a new century, at a time when all Americans are proud of their Nation's accomplishments and those who made it all possible. I am absolutely concerned that all our veterans are honored, and honored honorably. Every year Army veterans bring their families to Washington and are disappointed that no museum exists as a tribute to their service and sacrifice. Time is running out for many Army veterans, especially those of World War II. I urge my colleagues to review this important piece of legislation and support its passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill and the site selection criteria be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to create a National Museum for the United States Army. This endeavor is important to every American, every veteran, and all Members of Congress. I would be greatly pleased to have my colleagues join me in sponsoring this worthy legislation. Our great Capital City and its surrounding countryside host every kind of museum imaginable, but not one for one of this Nation's greatest institutions, the United States Army. Area museums serving the American public today are all worthy museums, but this great city and this great Nation are sadly without a museum for its citizen-soldiers who have sacrificed so much for their country. The purpose of the legislation which I introduce today is to designate a place for the Army Museum to be built to preserve, interpret, and display the important role the Army has played in the history of our Nation. What I propose is not new. Over the past two decades many sites have been suggested and most are unsatisfactory because they have unrealistic development requirements, because their locations are unsuitable for such an esteemed building, or they lacked an appropriate Army setting. Since 1983, the process of choosing a site for the Army Museum has been a long cumbersome undertaking. A site selection committee was organized and it developed a list of 17 criteria which any candidate site is required to possess before it was to be selected as home to the Army Museum. Among other requirements, these criteria required such things as: an area permitting movement of large military vehicles for exhibits and tractor trailer trucks for shipments, commanding and aesthetically pleasing vistas, positive impact on environment, closeness to public transportation, closeness to a Washington Tourmobile route, convenience to Fort Myer for support by the 3rd Infantry, The Old Guard, accessibility by private automobile, adequate parking for 150 staff and official visitors, adequate parking for a portion of the 1,000,000 visitors per year that do not use public transportation, food service for staff and visitors, area low in crime and safe for staff and visitors, suitable space, 300,000 square feet, for construction, a low water table, good drainage and no history of flooding and suitability for subterranean construction. Since 1984, more than 60 sites have been studied, yet only a handful has been worthy of any serious consideration. The most prominent recent site suggestions have included Carlisle, Pennsylvania; Gettysburg, Pennsylvania; the Washington Navy Yard; and Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Of these sites, most clearly have characteristics which are directly contrary to the established criteria for site selection. The extraordinary distance of Carlisle from Washington speaks for itself. The suggestion that the Army locate its museum in Washington's Navy Yard is also directly contrary to prerequisites for site selection. The Washington Navy Yard is situated in a dangerous and difficult-to-get-to part of Washington, on the Anacostia River and on a precarious 50-year flood plain. Because this area floods so often, a ``Washington Navy Yard Army Museum'', let me pause to repeat this awkward location a ``Washington Navy Yard Army Museum'', might well suffer the embarrassment of being closed ``due to flooding.'' This would not be the way America should honor Army history. The Navy Yard over the years has become less military in character and a patchwork home to various government offices. To locate the Army Museum in an old Navy yard, which is sometimes under water, would send a clear signal to visitors that choosing a home to their history was nothing more than an afterthought. In 1991, the Deputy Secretary of Defense directed that the site searches include the Mount Vernon Corridor as a possible location for the Army Museum. Fort Belvoir quickly became a very attractive location. Fort Belvoir offers a 48-acre site, only 5 minutes from Interstate 95, which is traveled by over 300 million vehicles annually, it is 3 minutes from the Fairfax County parkway, and is served by Metro Bus, the Fort Belvoir site fronts on US Route 1, Richmond Highway and is next to the main gate of Fort Belvoir. The Fort Belvoir site is also a winner historically. It is on a portion of General George Washington's properties when he was Commander in Chief of the Continental Army. It is located on the historical heritage trail of the Mount Vernon Estate, The Grist Mill, Woodlawn Plantation, Pohick Church, and Gunston Hall. Situating the Army Museum at Fort Belvoir is a natural tie to a long established military and historic installation that has already been approved by the National Capitol Planning Commission to be used for community activities, which includes museums, as a part of the Fort Belvoir Master Plan. The Fort Belvoir site meets all 17 criterions originally established by the Army. The bill I am introducing today names Fort Belvoir as the site for the Army Museum. Fort Belvoir is the best location in the Washington area to host an Army museum. Army veterans want to remember and show their contribution to history in an Army setting and culture in which they themselves once served. Fort Belvoir is the perfect place to do this and it qualifies on every criterion established in 1983 by the Army's Site Selection Committee. For Belvoir is Army and should host Army history. Therefore, I ask that my colleagues support this bill and bring the 18-year search for a home for the Army Museum to a close by selecting a worthy home for one of this Nation's greatest institutions. Thomas Jefferson wrote to John Adams in 1817, ``A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable.'' I am pleased to see that the National U.S. Army Museum is a task for this Congress at the beginning of a new century, at a time when all Americans are proud of their Nation's accomplishments and those who made it all possible. I am absolutely concerned that all our veterans are honored, and honored honorably. Every year Army veterans bring their families to Washington and are disappointed that no museum exists as a tribute to their service and sacrifice. Time is running out for many Army veterans, especially those of World War II. I urge my colleagues to review this important piece of legislation and support its passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill and the site selection criteria be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, during the Congressional recess last week, the Supreme Court issued an extremely important decision regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act and the principles of federalism. The decision, Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, is one in a series of cases that is helping reassert the role of the States in our Federal system of Government. The eleventh amendment to the Constitution prohibits States from being sued in Federal court by private citizens for money damages, unless the State consents. In the Garrett case, the Supreme Court said that based on this provision it is unconstitutional for the Congress to hold the States liable for private lawsuits under the ADA. The Congress did not or could not create a record of a pattern of discrimination by the States sufficient to meet the heavy burden required by the Constitution. While the case referred to Title I of the ADA, which concerns employment discrimination, the reasoning of the Court should apply equally to all of the ADA and well beyond the ADA. I would like to note just one example. In 1998, the Supreme Court held that the language of the ADA was clear enough to cover state and local prisons. I immediately introduced legislation to exclude State and local prisons from the ADA because I do not believe that the Congress considered the ADA applying to these institutions when it passed the legislation. After all, the housing of prisoners is a core State function, with about 94 percent of prisoners being maintained in State and local facilities. I have reintroduced the legislation, S. 34, in this Congress. However, this Supreme Court decision should be very beneficial in limiting the application of the ADA in the prison context on the State level even without the Congress amending the ADA. This is just an example of how this case will help keep the Federal Government out of areas that traditionally have been reserved to the States. Far too often, the Congress ignores the principles of federalism and acts as though the States are subdivisions of the Federal Government. Decisions such as Garrett remind the Congress that this is simply not the case. The Constitution created a Federal Government of limited, enumerated powers, and those powers that the Constitution does not provide for the Federal Government are reserved to the States and to the people. The Congress must do more to recognize the separation of powers between the Federal Government and the States. I am pleased that the Supreme Court is showing a renewed respect for the principles of federalism.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to improve our existing laws regarding the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps programs, more commonly known as JROTC. Established by Congress in 1916, Junior ROTC has demonstrated over the decades that it works. Junior ROTC is an elective high school course taught by retired military personnel at selected private and public high schools in the United States and its territories. It is also taught abroad through the Department of Defense Dependents School System. The main goal of JROTC is to motivate and develop young people. In order to accomplish this goal, the program combines classroom instruction and extracurricular activities oriented on attaining an awareness of the rights, responsibilities, and privileges of citizenship; developing the student's sense of personal responsibility; building life skills; and providing leadership opportunities. As we are all aware, President Bush recently placed our Nation's youth at the top of his agenda. In his forward to the ``No Child Left Behind'' Education Reform Plan, the President stated that ``[the] mission is to build the mind and character of every child, from every background.'' There is no existing education program that accomplishes exactly this goal better than JROTC. What students study in Junior ROTC is not primarily found in textbooks. What is learned by students enrolled in JROTC is not at the disposal of students and schools without the JROTC programs. As former Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Charles Krulak, summarized in a March 19, 1999 letter to me, ``as we seek to identify and develop young men and women of character, this program does it all.'' Widely recognized studies have praised JROTC as having a dramatic positive impact in high school education. In fact, one report noted that JROTC cadets boast a better class attendance rate, a lower number of disciplinary infractions, and a higher number of graduates. The report also stated that ``Cadets performed better than the overall school population in every area that is routinely measured by educators, including: academic performance, grade point average, the Scholastic Aptitude Test, and the American College Test.'' It comes as no surprise that schools districts throughout the United States are clamoring to establish JROTC units at hundreds of high schools. While the primary purpose of JROTC is to develop good citizens, there are, in fact, tangible benefits to our Nation's Armed Services. Statistics demonstrate that over 40 percent of students who graduate from the JROTC program choose some form of military service. Without a doubt, this fact proves conclusively that good citizens choose to serve their country. The JROTC program's contribution to our Nation's schools, communities and Armed Forces is no less than remarkable in conveying a sense of service, patriotism, leadership communication skills, team work, and self-esteem. After JROTC and advancing into their futures, young men and women carry such virtues into America's society while serving as a bridge between the military and civil society at a time when the two have tended to diverge. The dividends of this cannot be overstated. Soon we will be unable to expand the proven and praised Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps programs. By law, the JROTC program is limited to having 3,500 units for schools throughout the United States. Each of our military services have limits to the number of units they may establish, and the Marine Corps has already reached its limitations. Without changing existing law, thousands of high schools will never have the opportunity to reap the benefits of the JROTC program. Furthermore, some Services have encountered difficulty recruiting retired Officers and Non-Commissioned Officers to fill instructor positions at certain high schools, especially in inner-city and rural schools. These staffing difficulties compromise the ability to establish these especially critical new units. The legislation that I am introducing today is straightforward and simple. It seeks to repeal limitations on the number of Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps units and opens the door to the many retired Guard and Reserve Officers and Non-Commissioned Officers who have expressed an interest in serving as JROTC instructors, but because of the existing law are unable to do so. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Every Member in Congress has a stake in assuring its unfettered enactment. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to improve our existing laws regarding the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps programs, more commonly known as JROTC. Established by Congress in 1916, Junior ROTC has demonstrated over the decades that it works. Junior ROTC is an elective high school course taught by retired military personnel at selected private and public high schools in the United States and its territories. It is also taught abroad through the Department of Defense Dependents School System. The main goal of JROTC is to motivate and develop young people. In order to accomplish this goal, the program combines classroom instruction and extracurricular activities oriented on attaining an awareness of the rights, responsibilities, and privileges of citizenship; developing the student's sense of personal responsibility; building life skills; and providing leadership opportunities. As we are all aware, President Bush recently placed our Nation's youth at the top of his agenda. In his forward to the ``No Child Left Behind'' Education Reform Plan, the President stated that ``[the] mission is to build the mind and character of every child, from every background.'' There is no existing education program that accomplishes exactly this goal better than JROTC. What students study in Junior ROTC is not primarily found in textbooks. What is learned by students enrolled in JROTC is not at the disposal of students and schools without the JROTC programs. As former Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Charles Krulak, summarized in a March 19, 1999 letter to me, ``as we seek to identify and develop young men and women of character, this program does it all.'' Widely recognized studies have praised JROTC as having a dramatic positive impact in high school education. In fact, one report noted that JROTC cadets boast a better class attendance rate, a lower number of disciplinary infractions, and a higher number of graduates. The report also stated that ``Cadets performed better than the overall school population in every area that is routinely measured by educators, including: academic performance, grade point average, the Scholastic Aptitude Test, and the American College Test.'' It comes as no surprise that schools districts throughout the United States are clamoring to establish JROTC units at hundreds of high schools. While the primary purpose of JROTC is to develop good citizens, there are, in fact, tangible benefits to our Nation's Armed Services. Statistics demonstrate that over 40 percent of students who graduate from the JROTC program choose some form of military service. Without a doubt, this fact proves conclusively that good citizens choose to serve their country. The JROTC program's contribution to our Nation's schools, communities and Armed Forces is no less than remarkable in conveying a sense of service, patriotism, leadership communication skills, team work, and self-esteem. After JROTC and advancing into their futures, young men and women carry such virtues into America's society while serving as a bridge between the military and civil society at a time when the two have tended to diverge. The dividends of this cannot be overstated. Soon we will be unable to expand the proven and praised Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps programs. By law, the JROTC program is limited to having 3,500 units for schools throughout the United States. Each of our military services have limits to the number of units they may establish, and the Marine Corps has already reached its limitations. Without changing existing law, thousands of high schools will never have the opportunity to reap the benefits of the JROTC program. Furthermore, some Services have encountered difficulty recruiting retired Officers and Non-Commissioned Officers to fill instructor positions at certain high schools, especially in inner-city and rural schools. These staffing difficulties compromise the ability to establish these especially critical new units. The legislation that I am introducing today is straightforward and simple. It seeks to repeal limitations on the number of Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps units and opens the door to the many retired Guard and Reserve Officers and Non-Commissioned Officers who have expressed an interest in serving as JROTC instructors, but because of the existing law are unable to do so. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Every Member in Congress has a stake in assuring its unfettered enactment. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the nomination of our distinguished former colleague, John Ashcroft, to serve as Attorney General. The debate we have been engaged in is not about Senator Ashcroft's qualifications because they are not in question. He has a wealth of experience and a record of exemplary public service that spans three decades. Twenty years ago, I recommended him for Attorney General under President Reagan, and I would like to place that letter into the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. The intervening time has only made it more clear that he should serve in this position. Before I had the pleasure of working with him in the Senate and on the Judiciary Committee, he served two terms as Missouri's Attorney General and Governor. Senator Ashcroft is one of the most qualified people nominated for this position in all my years of public service. I recognize that some Senators disagree with some of the positions that he has taken during his almost thirty years in public life. As I said during his confirmation hearing, I hope the question will not be whether we agree with him on every issue. That is a standard he cannot meet for all of us. The President is entitled to some deference from the Senate in selecting those who will carry out the President's agenda. In the Senate, what we can expect is that the Attorney General will do his job and enforce all the laws, and Senator Ashcroft will. His record of enforcing laws that he did not support while serving as Missouri Attorney General should help prove it. We should keep in mind that all Attorneys General are called upon to enforce laws they do not support. The last Attorney General, Janet Reno, opposed the death penalty. I was one of many senators who strongly disagreed with her on this point, but we still supported her quick confirmation. During the extensive committee hearings recently, Senator Ashcroft did not have much time to talk about issues which will occupy most of his time as Attorney General, such as crime and drugs. In the Senate, he was a leader in fighting crime and helping keep drugs out of the hands of children. He also stood up for victim's rights. It should come as no surprise that the law enforcement community strongly supports him. Some of the toughest criticism of Senator Ashcroft's record is simply not warranted. For example, it was proper for him to oppose a judge- imposed school desegregation plan in Kansas City called Missouri v. Jenkins. In that case, the judge ordered a massive tax increase to pay for his almost unlimited school improvements, which included a 2,000 square-foot planetarium, a 25-acre farm, a model United Nations, an art gallery, movie editing rooms, and swimming pools. The plan was an elaborate social experiment in the name of education, and it utterly failed. Moreover, it established terrible legal precedent regarding the power of federal judges. I have introduced legislation in every Congress since to prohibit judges from being able to impose a tax increase. Elected state officials should represent their constituents and oppose activist federal judges like this, as long as they comply with the court after the case ends, as John Ashcroft did. On another matter, I believe it is highly unfortunate that some outside special interests have gone beyond specific issues in their attacks and have criticized ``Senator Ashcroft's identification with . . . religious, right-wing extremism.'' This Senate should not tolerate any effort to make a person's religious beliefs an issue in whether they should serve in a high government position. As the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America wrote to the Senate, ``this view has been the subtext for some of the criticism of Mr. Ashcroft. We are confident that you will reject it, as you would any other form of prejudice.'' Senator Ashcroft has not only received strong support from well-known Christian organizations, such as the Christian Coalition, he has been endorsed by organizations of various religious faiths, such as the major Orthodox Jewish Organization, Agudath Israel of America. This is a testament to what kind of person John Ashcroft is. In fact, he should be praised for his deep religious convictions. It helps explain many of his fine traits. He is a man of honesty and integrity, and a person of strong moral character. I am confident that he will serve with dedication and distinction as the Nation's top law enforcement officer. America needs a man like Senator Ashcroft to lead the Justice Department. I urge all of my colleagues to look beyond partisan politics and support this exceptional candidate. I ask unanimous consent that the letter I referenced earlier be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce a Senate resolution which designates August 16, 2001 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 Two until the present. I was privileged to serve with the 82nd Airborne Division, one of the first airborne divisions to be organized. In a two-year period during World War Two, the regiments of the 82nd served in Italy at Anzio, in France at Normandy (where I landed with them), and at the Battle of the Bulge. The 11th, 13th, 17th, and 101st Airborne Divisions and numerous other regimental and battalion size airborne units were also organized following the success of the Parachute Test Platoon. In the last sixty years, these airborne forces have performed in important military and peace-keeping operations all over the world, and it is only fitting that we honor them. Through passage of ``National Airborne Day'', the Senate will reaffirm our support for the members of the airborne community and also show our gratitude for their tireless commitment to our Nation's defense and ideals.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Thank you. That is kind of you.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, pursuant to Section 102(b) of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. sec. 1302(b)), the Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance have submitted a report to Congress. This document, dated December 31, 2000 is titled a ``Review and Report on the Applicability to the Legislative Branch of Federal Laws Relating to Terms and Conditions of Employment and Access to Public Services and Public Accommodations.'' Section 102(b) requires this report to be printed in the Congressional Record, and referred to committees with jurisdiction. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the report be printed in the Record and that the report be appropriately referred.

Mr. THURMOND

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

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Anthony J. Principi to be Secretary of Veterans Affairs. I am pleased that President Bush has selected a person of experience and ability for this important position. Mr. Principi has a strong background and association with the military community. He is a veteran of the United States Navy, a graduate from the U.S. Naval Academy, and a highly decorated Vietnam veteran. He also served in the Navy's Judge Advocate General Corps. Mr. Principi is well qualified for this position, having previously served as Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs and Deputy Secretary of the VA. I personally know him to be a capable and dedicated public servant. In 1993, I called upon Mr. Principi to be my Staff Director for the Senate Armed Services Committee. Later, as Chairman, I appointed him to a Congressional Commission on Military Servicemembers and Veterans Transition. He subsequently was elected by his colleagues as Chairman of that Commission. In each of these instances, his performance was exceptional. There are a number of important issues facing the Department of Veterans Affairs which affect veterans, their families, and employees of the Department. I will mention a few of these issues to emphasize my own concern and to stress to Mr. Principi that he must aggressively address these matters. The first issue I hope Secretary Principi strongly addresses is that of Veterans Benefits. It takes too long now to get initial decisions and the review process can take years. I hope Secretary Principi will work with the Under Secretary for Benefits to improve the VA benefit review process. Second, I am concerned about the status of veterans health care. The Congress and the VA have enacted and implemented a number of reforms. The challenge now is to ensure that the availability, delivery and quality of health care improves. A third concern I have relates to the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation, VERA, process. A few years ago, Congress passed a bill that requires the VA to allocate resources according to veteran population and use of VA medical facilities. This legislation generally has shifted some resources from the Northeast to the South and West. I trust Secretary Principi will continue to support this important reform despite political pressures to do otherwise. I congratulate Mr. Principi on his nomination. As a member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I look forward to working with the Secretary as we address the needs and concerns of the men and women who have given much for our Nation.

Mr. THURMOND

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

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to prohibit Federal judges from imposing a tax increase as a judicial remedy. It has always been my firm belief that Federal judges exceed the boundaries of their limited jurisdiction under the Constitution when they order new taxes or order increases in existing tax rates. The Founding Fathers clearly understood that taxation was a role for the legislative branch and not the judicial branch. Article I of the Constitution lists the legislative powers, one of which is that ``the Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes.'' Article III establishes the judicial powers, and the power to tax is nowhere contained in Article III. The Federalist Papers are also clear in this regard. in Federalist No. 48, James Madison explained that ``the legislative branch alone has access to the pockets of the people.'' In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton stated, ``The judiciary . . . has no influence over . . . the purse, no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever.'' In 1990, in the case of Missouri v. Jenkins, five members of the Supreme Court stated in dicta that although a Federal judge could not directly raise taxes, he could order the local government to raise taxes. There is no difference between a judge raising taxes and a judge ordering a legislative official to raise taxes. I am hopeful that, if the issue were directly before the Court today, a majority of the current membership of the Court would reject that dicta and hold that Federal judges do not have the power to order that taxes be raised. However, in the event the Court does not correct this error, I am introducing the Judicial Taxation Prohibition Act, which would prohibit judges from raising taxes. I have introduced it in every Congress since the Supreme Court's misguided decision was issued, and I intend to do so until it is corrected. This legislation is essential to affirm the separation of powers. There is a simple reason why this distinction between the branches of government is so important and must remain clear. The legislative branch is responsible to the people through the democratic process. However, the judicial branch is composed of individuals who are not elected and have life tenure. By design, the members of the judicial branch do not depend on the popular will for their offices. They are not accountable to the people. They simply have no business setting the rate of taxes the people must pay. For a judge to order that taxes be increased amounts to taxation without representation. It is entirely contrary to the understanding of the Founding Fathers. The phrase ``taxation without representation'' recalls an important time in American history that is worth repeating in some detail. The Constitution can best be understood by referencing the era in which it was adopted. Not since Great Britain's ministry of George Grenville in 1765 have the American people faced the assault of taxation without representation as now authorized in the Jenkins decision. As part of his imperial reforms to tighten British control in the colonies, Grenville pushed the Stamp Act through the Parliament in 1765. This Act required excise duties to be paid by the colonists in the form of revenue stamps affixed to a variety of legal documents. This action came at a time when the colonies were in an uproar over the Sugar Act of 1764 which levied duties on certain imports such as sugar, indigo, coffee, and linens. The ensuing firestorm of debate in America centered on the power of Britain to tax the colonies. James Otis, a young Boston attorney, echoed the opinion of most colonists stating that the parliament did not have power to tax the colonies because Americans had no representation in that body. Mr. Otis had been attributed with the statement in 1761 that ``taxation without representation is tyranny.'' In October 1765, delegates from nine states were sent to New York as part of the Stamp Act Congress to protest the new law. It was during this time that John Adams wrote in opposition to the Stamp Act, ``we have always understood it to be a grand and fundamental principle * * * that no free man shall be subject to any tax to which he has not given his own consent, in person or by proxy.'' A number of resolutions were adopted by the Stamp Act Congress protesting the acts of Parliament. One resolution stated, ``It is inseparably essential to the freedom of a people * * * that no taxes be imposed on them, but with their own consent, given personally or by their representatives.'' The resolutions concluded that the Stamp Act had a ``manifest tendency to subvert the rights and liberties of the colonists.'' Opposition to the Stamp Act was vehement throughout the colonies. While Grenville's successor was determined to repeal the law, the social, economic, and political climate in the colonies brought on the American Revolution. The principles expressed during the earlier crisis against taxation without representation became firmly imbedded in our Federal Constitution of 1787. I recognize that some say this legislation is unconstitutional. They argue that the Congress does not have the authority under Article III to limit and regulate the jurisdiction of the inferior Federal courts. This argument has no basis in the Constitution or common sense. Article III, Section 1, of the Constitution provides jurisdiction to the lower Federal courts as the ``Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.'' There is no mandate in the Constitution to confer equity jurisdiction to the inferior Federal courts. Congress has the flexibility under Article III to ``ordain and establish'' the lower Federal courts as it deems appropriate. This basic premise has been upheld by the Supreme Court in a number of cases including Lawcourt v. Phillips, Lauf v. E.G. Skinner and Co., Kline v. Burke Construction Co., and Sheldon v. Sill. In other words, the Congress was expressly granted the authority to establish lower Federal courts, which it did. What the Congress has been given the power to do, it can certainly decide to stop doing. By passing this bill, the Congress would simply be limiting the jurisdiction of the lower Federal courts in a small area. It is also important to note that this legislation would not restrict the power of the Federal courts to remedy Constitutional wrongs. Clearly, the Court has the power to order a remedy for a Constitutional violation that may include expenditures of money by Federal, State, or local governments. This bill simply requires that if the Court orders that money be spent, it is for the legislative body to decide how to comply with that order. The legislative body may choose to raise taxes, but it also may choose to cut spending or sell assets. That choice of how to come up with the money should always be for the legislature to decide. I believe it is clear under Article III that the Congress has the authority to restrict the remedial jurisdiction of the Federal Courts in this fashion. Mr. President, the dispositive issue presented by the Jenkins decision is whether the American people want, as a matter of national policy, to be exposed to taxation without their consent by an independent and insulated judiciary. I most assuredly believe they do not. Mr. President, how long will it be before a Federal judge orders tax increases to build new highways or prisons? I do not believe the Founding Fathers had this type of activism in mind when they established the judicial branch of government. Judicial activism is a matter of great concern to me and has been for many years. I have always felt that Federal judges must strictly adhere to the principle that it is their role to interpret the law and not make the law. This simple principle is fundamental to our system of government. The American people deserve a response to the Jenkins decision. We must provide protection against the imposition of taxes by an unelected, unaccountable judiciary. We must not permit this blatant violation of the separation of powers. We have a duty to right this wrong. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce legislation to address an undue burden that has arisen out of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The purpose of the ADA was to give disabled Americans the opportunity to fully participate in society and contribute to it. This was a worthy goal. But even legislation with the best of intentions often has unintended consequences. I submit that one of those is the application of the ADA to state and local prisoners throughout America. In 1998, the Supreme Court ruled in Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Yeskey [118 S.Ct. 1952 (1998)] that the ADA applies to every state prison and local jail in this country. To no avail, the Attorneys General of most states, as well as numerous state and local organizations, had joined with Pennsylvania in court filings to oppose the ADA applying to prisoners. Prior to the Supreme Court ruling, the circuit courts were split on the issue. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, my home circuit, had forcefully concluded that the ADA, as well as its predecessor and companion law, the Rehabilitation Act, did not apply to state prisoners. The decision focused on federalism concerns and the fact that the Congress did not make clear that it intended to involve itself to this degree in an activity traditionally reserved to the states. However, the Supreme Court did not agree, holding that the language of the Act is broad enough to clearly cover state prisons. It is not an issue on the Federal level because the Federal Bureau of Prisons voluntarily complies with the Act. The Supreme Court did not say whether applying the ADA to state prisons exceeded the Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment, but we should not wait on the Supreme Court to consider this argument before acting. Although it was rational for the Supreme Court to read the broad language of the ADA the way it did, it is far from clear that we in the Congress considered the application of this sweeping new social legislation in the prison environment. The Seventh Circuit has recognized that the ``failure to exclude prisoners may well have been an oversight.'' The findings and purpose of the law seem to support this. The introductory language of the ADA states, ``The Nation's proper goals regarding individuals with disabilities are to assure equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency'' to allow ``people with disabilities * * * to compete on an equal basis and to pursue those opportunities for which our free society is justifiably famous.'' Of course, a prison is not a free society, as the findings and purpose of the Act envisioned. Indeed, it is quite the opposite. In short, as the Ninth Circuit explained, ``The Act was not designed to deal specifically with the prison environment; it was intended for general societal application.'' In any event, now that the Supreme Court has spoken, it is time for the Congress to confront this issue. The Congress should act now to exempt state and local prisons from the ADA. That is why I am again introducing the State and Local Prison Relief Act, as I did soon after the Supreme Court decided the Yeskey case in 1998. The State and Local Prison Relief Act would exempt prisons from the requirements of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act for prisoners. More specifically, it exempts any services, accommodations, programs, activities or treatment of any kind regarding prisoners that may otherwise be required by the Acts. Through this language, I wish to make entirely clear that the bill is not intended to exempt prisons from having to accommodate disabled legal counsel, visitors, or others who are not inmates. Also, the fact that the bill applies to Title II of the ADA should make clear that it is not intended to exempt prison hiring practices for non-inmate employees. The bill is intended only to apply to prisoners. I firmly believe that if we do not act, the ADA will have broad adverse implications for the management of penal institutions. Prisoners will file an endless number of lawsuits demanding special privileges, which will involve Federal judges in the intricate details of running our state and local prisons. Mr. President, we should continuously remind ourselves that the Constitution created a Federal government of limited, enumerated powers. Those powers not delegated to the Federal government were reserved to the states or the people. As James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 45, ``the powers delegated to the Federal government are few and definite. . . . [The powers] which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.'' The Federal government should avoid intrusion into matters traditionally reserved for the states. We must respect this delicate balance of power. Unfortunately, federalism is more often spoken about than respected. Although the entire ADA raises federalism concerns, the problem is especially acute in the prison context. There are few powers more traditionally reserved for the states than crime. The criminal laws have always been the province of the states, and the vast majority of prisoners have always been housed in state prisons. The First Congress enacted a law asking the states to house Federal prisoners in their jails for fifty cents per month. The first Federal prison was not built until over 100 years later, and only three existed before 1925. Even today, as the size and scope of the Federal government has grown immensely, only about 6% of prisoners are housed in Federal institutions. Managing that other 94% is a core state function. As the Supreme Court has stated, ``Maintenance of penal institutions is an essential part of one of government's primary functions--the preservation of societal order through enforcement of the criminal law. It is difficult to imagine an activity in which a State has a stronger interest, or one that is more intricately bound up with state laws, regulations, and procedures.'' The primary function of prisons is to house criminals. Safety and security are the overriding concerns of prison administration. The rules and regulations, the daily schedules, the living and working arrangements--these all revolve around protecting prison employees, inmates, and the public. But the goal of the ADA essentially is to take away any barrier to anyone with any disability. Accommodating inmates in the manner required by the ADA will interfere with the ability of prison administrators to keep safety and security their overriding concern. For example, a federal court in Pennsylvania ruled that a prisoner who disobeyed a direct order could not be punished because of the ADA. The judge said it was okay for a prisoner to return to his cell after he was told not to by a guard, saying the prisoner was justified in refusing to comply because he was doing so to relieve stress built up due to his Tourette's Syndrome. The practical effect of the ADA will be that prison officials will have to grant special privileges to certain inmates and to excuse others from complying with generally-applicable prison rules. For example, a federal judge ordered an Iowa prison to install cable television in a disabled inmate's cell because the man had difficulty going to the common areas to watch TV. After much public protest, the ruling was eventually reversed. The ADA presents a perfect opportunity for prisoners to try to beat the system, and use the courts to do it. There are over 1.7 million inmates in state prisons and local jails, and the numbers are rising every year. Indeed, the total prison population has grown about 6.5% per year since 1990. Prisons have a substantially greater percentage of persons with disabilities that are covered by the ADA than the general population, including AIDS, mental retardation, psychological disorders, learning disabilities, drug addiction, and alcoholism. Further, administrators control every aspect of prisoners' lives, such as assigning educational opportunities, recreation, and jobs in prison industries. Combine these facts, and the possibilities for lawsuits are endless. For example, in most state prison systems, inmates are classified and assigned based in part on their disabilities. This helps administrators meet the disabled inmates' needs in a cost-effective manner. However, under the ADA, prisoners probably will be able to claim that they must be assigned to a prison without regard to their disability. Were it not for their disability, they may have been assigned to the prison closest to their home, and in that case, every prison would have to be able to accommodate every disability. That could mean every prison having, for example, mental health treatment centers, services for hearing-impaired inmates, and dialysis treatment. The cost is potentially enormous. A related expense is attorney's fees. The ADA has incentives to encourage private litigants to vindicate their rights in court. Any plaintiff, including an inmate, who is only partially successful can get generous attorney's fees and monetary damages, possibly including even punitive damages. In one ADA class action lawsuit in California, the state has paid the prisoners' attorneys over $2 million, with hourly fees as high as $300. Applying the ADA to prisons is the latest unfunded Federal mandate that we are imposing on the states. Adequate funding is hard for prisons to achieve, especially in state and local communities where all government funds are scarce. The public is angry about how much money must be spent to house prisoners. Even with prison populations rising, the people do not want more of their money spent on prisoners. Often, there is simply not enough money to make the changes in challenged programs to accommodate the disabled. If prison administrators do not have the money to change a program, they will probably have to eliminate it. Thus, accommodation could mean the elimination of worthwhile educational, recreational, and rehabilitative programs, making all inmates worse off. Apart from money, accommodation may mean modifying the program in such a way as to take away its beneficial purpose. A good example is the Supreme Court's Yeskey case itself. Yeskey was declared medically ineligible to participate in a boot camp program because he had high blood pressure. So, he sued under the ADA. The boot camp required rigorous physical activity, such as work projects. If the program has to be changed to accommodate his physical abilities, it may not meet its basic goals, and the authorities may eliminate it. Thus, the result could be that everyone loses the benefit of an otherwise effective correctional tool. Another impact of the ADA may be to make an already volatile prison environment even more difficult to control. Many inmates are very sensitive to the privileges and benefits that others get in a world where privileges are relatively few. Some have irrational suspicions and phobias. An inmate who is not disabled may be angry if he believes a disabled prisoner is getting special treatment, without rationally accepting that the law requires it, and could take out his anger on others around him, including the disabled prisoner. We must keep in mind that it is judges who will be making these policy decisions. To apply the Act and determine what phrases like ``qualified individual with a disability'' mean, judges must involved themselves in intricate, fact-intensive issues. Essentially, the ADA requires judges to micromanage prisons. Judges are not qualified to second-guess prison administrators and make these complex, difficult decisions. Prisons cannot be run by judicial decree. In applying Constitutional rights to prisoners, the Supreme Court has tried to get away from micromanagement and has viewed prisoner claims deferentially in favor of the expertise of prison officials. It has stated that we will not ``substitute our judgment on difficult and sensitive matters of institutional administration for the determinations of those charged with the formidable task of running a prison. This approach ensures the ability of corrections officials to anticipate security problems and to adopt innovative solutions to the intractable problems of prison administration, and avoids unnecessary intrusion of the judiciary into problems particularly ill suited to resolution by decree.'' Take for example a case from the Fourth Circuit, my home circuit, from 1995. The Court explained that a morbidly obese inmate presented corrections officials ``with a lengthy and ever-increasing list of modifications which he insisted were necessary to accommodate his obese condition. Thus, he demanded a larger cell, a cell closer to support facilities, handrails to assist him in using the toilet, wider entrances to his cell and the showers, non-skid matting in the lobby area, and alternative outdoor recreational activities to accommodate his inability to stand or walk for long periods.'' It is not workable for judges to resolve all of these questions. It is noteworthy that a primary purpose of the Prison Litigation Reform Act was to stop judges from micromanaging prisons and to reduce the burdens of prison litigation. As the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court recognized last year, the PLRA is having some success. However, this most recent Supreme Court decision will hamper that progress. Moreover, the ADA delegated to Federal agencies the authority to create regulations to implement the law. In response, the Federal bureaucracy has created extremely specific and detailed mandates. Regarding facilities, they dictate everything from the number of water fountains to the flash rates of visual alarms. State and local correctional authorities must fall in line behind these regulations. In yet another way, we have the Justice Department exercising regulatory oversight over our state and local communities. Prisons are fundamentally different from other places in society. Prisoners are not entitled to all of the rights and privileges of law- abiding citizens, but they often get them. They have cable television. They have access to better gyms and libraries than most Americans. The list goes on. The public is tired of special privileges for prisoners. Applying the ADA to prisons is a giant step in the wrong direction. Prisoners will abuse the ADA to get privileges they were previously denied, and the reason will be the overreaching hand of the Federal government. We should not let this happen. Mr. President, the National Government has gone full circle. We have gone from asking the states to house Federal prisoners to dictating to the states how they house their own prisoners. There must be some end to the powers of the Federal government, and to the privileges it grants the inmates of this Nation. I propose that we start by passing this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to allow juries to convict criminals on a 10-2 jury vote rather than a unanimous vote. It is my belief that this change to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure will bring about increased efficiency and finality in our Nation's Federal court system while maintaining the integrity of the pursuit of justice. This legislation is consistent with the Supreme Court ruling concerning unanimity in jury verdicts, specifically in Apodaca v. Oregon [406 U.S. 404 (1972)]. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a jury trial does not require that the jury's vote be unanimous. The Supreme Court affirmed an Oregon law that permitted what I am proposing--a 10-2 conviction in criminal prosecutions. Mr. President, clearly there is no constitutional mandate for the current requirement under the Federal Rules of a jury verdict by a unanimous vote. The origins of the unanimity rule are not easy to trace, although it may date back to the latter half of the 14th century. One theory proffered is that defendants had few other rules to ensure a fair trial and a unanimous jury vote for conviction compensated for other inadequacies at trial. Of course, today the entire trial process is heavily tilted towards the accused with many, many safeguards in place to ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial. It is interesting that a unanimity requirement was considered by our Founding Fathers as part of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, but it was rejected. The proposed language for the Sixth Amendment, as introduced by James Madison in the House of Representatives, provided for trial by jury as well as a ``requisite of unanimity for conviction.'' The language eventually adopted by the Congress and the States in the Sixth Amendment provides ``the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury,'' but does not specify any requirement on conviction. This was a wise decision. It is clear that ``trial by jury in criminal cases is fundamental to the American scheme of justice,'' as the Supreme Court has stated. Juries are representative of the community and their solemn duty is to hear the evidence, deliberate, and decide the case after careful review of the facts and the law. As the Supreme Court has noted, a jury can responsibly perform this function if allowed to decide the case by a margin that is less than unanimous. This change for jury verdicts in the Federal courts will reduce the likelihood of a single juror corrupting an otherwise thoughtful and reasonable deliberation of the evidence. It is not easy to adequately screen a juror for potential bias before they are selected to serve on a jury. This cannot be done with absolute certainty. We should work to prevent one such juror from having the power to prevent justice from being served. One juror should not have the power to allow a criminal to go free in the face of considerable opposition from his peers on the jury. Even if a defendant is tried again after one or two jurors hold out against conviction, a new trial is very costly and time-consuming. Most importantly, a new trial substantially delays justice for the victims and society. It is important to note that this new rule could also work to the advantage of someone on trial. Currently, if there is a hung jury, a prosecutor has the power to retry a defendant. This is true even if only one juror believed the defendant was guilty. Under this new rule, if at least ten jurors concluded that the defendant was not guilty, he would be acquitted and could not be forced to endure a new trial. This rule has the potential to benefit either side as it brings finality to a criminal case. In other words, there are cases where a requirement of unanimity produced a hung jury where, had there been a non-unanimous allowance, the jury would have voted to convict or acquit. Yet, in either instance, the defendant is accorded his constitutional right of a judgment by his peers. It is my firm belief that this legislation will not undermine the pillars of justice or result in the conviction of innocent persons. Moreover, I believe the American people will strongly support this reform to allow a 10-2 decision. This is one way the Congress can help fight crime and promote criminal justice. Mr. President, I hope the Congress will support this important proposal. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in its entirety in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to clarify the application and effect of legislation which the Congress enacts. My act is simple and straightforward. It provides that unless future legislation expressly states otherwise, new enactments shall be applied prospectively and shall not create private rights of action. This will significantly reduce unnecessary litigation and court costs, and will benefit both the public and our judicial system. The purpose of this legislation is to tackle a persistent problem that is easy to prevent. When Congress enacts a bill, the legislation often does not indicate whether it is to be applied retroactively or whether it creates private rights of action. The failure of the Congress to address these issues in each piece of legislation results in unnecessary confusion and uncertainty. This uncertainty leads to lawsuits, thereby contributing to the high cost of litigation and the congestion of our courts. In the absence of clear action by the Congress on its intent regarding these critical threshold questions, the outcome is left up to the courts. Whether a law applies to conduct that occurred before the effective date of the Act and whether a private person has been granted the right to sue on their own behalf in civil court under an Act can be critical or even dispositive of a case. Even if the issue is only one aspect of a case and it is raised early in a lawsuit, a decision that the lawsuit can proceed generally cannot be appealed until the end of the case. If the appellate court eventually rules that one of these issues should have prevented the trial, the litigants have been put to substantial burden and unnecessary expense which could have been avoided. Currently, courts attempt to determine the intent of the Congress in deciding the effect and application of legislation in this regard. Thus, courts look first and foremost to the statutory language. If a statute expressly provides that it is retroactive or creates a private cause of action, that dictate is followed. Further, courts apply a presumption that legislation is not retroactive. This is an entirely appropriate, longstanding rule because, absent mistake or an emergency, fundamental fairness generally dictates that conduct should be assessed under the rules that existed at the time the conduct took place. There is a similar presumption that the Congress did not intend to create rights beyond those that it expressly includes in its legislation. If the intent of Congress is not clear from the statute, courts generally look to legislative history, statutory structure, and possibly other sources of Congressional intent. This is where the unnecessary complexity and confusion is created. Sources other than statutory language are to varying degrees less reliable in predicting Congressional intent. They are much more difficult to interpret and may even be contradictory. The more sources for the course to analyze and the more vague the standard for review, the more likely courts will reach different results. Under current practice, trial courts around the country reach conflicting and inconsistent results on these issues, as do appellate courts when the issues are appealed. The problem of whether legislation is retroactive was dramatically illustrated after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. District courts and courts of appeal all over the country were required to resolve whether the 1991 Act should be applied retroactively, and the issue ultimately was considered by the Supreme Court. However, by the time the Court resolved the issue in 1994, well over 100 lower courts had ruled on this question and, although most had not found retroactivity, their decisions were inconsistent. Countless litigants across the country expended substantial resources debating this threshold procedural issue. All this litigation arose from a statute that contained no language providing that it be retroactive. To conclude that the provision of the statute in issue in the case was not to be applied retroactively, the majority opinion of the Court took 39 pages in the United States Reporter to explain why. It undertook a detailed analysis that demonstrates the unnecessary complexity of the current standard. It is no wonder that some Supreme Court justices argued in this case that a court should look only to whether the language of the statute expressly provides for retroactivity. That is what I propose. If my law had been in effect, the litigation would have been averted, while the outcome would have been exactly the same as the Supreme Court decided. Under my bill, newly enacted laws are not to be applied retroactively and do not create a private right of action, unless the legislation expressly provides otherwise. It is important to note that my bill does not in any way restrict the Congress on these important issues. The Congress may override this presumption by simply stating when it wishes legislation to be retroactive or create new private rights of action. It is clear that this legislation would save litigants and our judicial system millions and millions of dollars by avoiding a great deal of uncertainty and litigation. The Administrative Office of the Courts has expressed support for this important clarification to the law. Mr. President, if we are truly concerned about relieving the backlog of cases in our courts and reducing the costs of litigation, we should help our judicial system to focus its limited time and resources on resolving the merits of disputes, rather than deciding these preliminary matters. We hear numerous complaints about overworked judges and crowded dockets. This is a simple and straightforward way to do something about it. The Congress can help reduce the Federal caseload and help simplify the law. We should act on this important reform promptly. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record in its entirety.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the voluntary school prayer constitutional amendment. This bill is identical to S.J. Res. 73, which I introduced in the 98th Congress at the request of then-President Reagan and have reintroduced every Congress since. This proposal has received strong support from both sides of the aisle and is of vital importance to our Nation. It would restore the right to pray voluntarily in public schools--a right which was freely exercised under our Constitution until the 1960's, when the Supreme Court ruled to the contrary. Also, in 1985, the Supreme Court ruled an Alabama statute unconstitutional which authorized teachers in public schools to provide ``a period of silence . . . for meditation or voluntary prayer'' at the beginning of each day. As I stated when that opinion was issued and repeat again: the Supreme Court has too broadly interpreted the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and, in doing so, has incorrectly infringed on the rights of those children--and their parents--who wish to observe a moment of silence for religious or other purposes. Until the Supreme Court ruled in the Engel and Abington School District decisions, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was generally understood to prohibit the Federal Government from officially approving, or holding in special favor, any particular religious faith or denomination. In crafting that clause, our Founding Fathers sought to prevent what had originally caused many colonial Americans to emigrate to this country--an official, State religion. At the same time, they sought, through the Free Exercise Clause, to guarantee to all Americans the freedom to worship God without government interference or restraint. In their wisdom, they recognized that true religious liberty precludes the government from both forcing and preventing worship. As Supreme Court Justice William Douglas once stated: ``We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.'' Nearly every President since George Washington has proclaimed a day of public prayer. Moreover, we, as a Nation, continue to recognize the Deity in our Pledge of Allegiance by affirming that we are a Nation ``under God.'' Our currency is inscribed with the motto, ``In God We Trust''. In this Body, we open the Senate and begin our workday with the comfort and stimulus of voluntary group prayers. I would note that this practice has been upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court. It is unreasonable that the opportunity for the same beneficial experience is denied to the boys and girls who attend public schools. This situation simply does not comport with the intentions of the framers of the Constitution and is, in fact, antithetical to the rights of our youngest citizens to freely exercise their respective religions. It should be changed, without further delay. The Congress should swiftly pass this resolution and send it to the States for ratification. This amendment to the Constitution would clarify that it does not prohibit vocal, voluntary prayer in the public school and other public institutions. It emphatically states that no person may be required to participate in any prayer. The government would be precluded from drafting school prayers. This well-crafted amendment enjoys the support of an overwhelming number of Americans. I strongly urge my colleagues to support prompt consideration and approval of this legislation during this Congress. I ask unanimous consent that the legislation be printed in the Record.