J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to pay a tribute to Senator J. Bennett Johnston who is retiring at the end of the current year. As we all know, the South is a region that is rich in heritage and tradition, and one of its most time-honored practices is returning people to Congress year after year in order to build up power and seniority. For the past 24 years, J. Bennett Johnston has served his native State of Louisiana tirelessly and selflessly, and in the process, has gained great influence in the Senate, which he has masterfully used for the betterment of his constituents and his State. First elected to the Senate in 1972 Bennett Johnston set immediately to work in behalf of the people who had sent him to Washington. He secured positions on several important committees, including the Committees on Appropriations, and Energy and Natural Resources, that were especially beneficial to the economy and people of Louisiana. For the next twenty-four years, Senator Johnston dedicated himself to his efforts in this Chamber, accomplishing many significant things, including helping to create new jobs for Louisiana, spurring economic development in his State, helping to provide for the defense of the Nation, overseeing the creation of national parks and refuges in the Sportsman's Paradise, and having a significant role in the shaping of America's energy policies. Mr. President, as many of our colleagues are doing this year, Senator Johnston has decided to retire from this body. After more than two decades of commendable service, nobody can fault our friend for feeling his work here is done. As he heads back to Louisiana, Bennett can take pride in his many accomplishments and the exemplary manner in which he has worked to make Louisiana and the United States better and stronger. Unquestionably, he is a man of integrity, ability, and dedication and we all appreciate the great service he has rendered this Nation. I join my colleagues in wishing him good health and great happiness in the years ahead. I also wish to commend Bennett's wife, Mary, for the great service she has rendered to the U.S. Botanical Gardens here in Washington. Additionally, she is involved in many activities that benefit our Nation and her native State including being an advocate for immunization and historical preservation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, pursuant to section 304(d) of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. sec. 1384(d)), a notice of issuance of final regulations was submitted by the Office of Compliance, U.S. Congress. The notice contains final regulations related to Federal Service Labor-Management Relations (Regulations under section 220(d) of the Congressional Accountability Act.) The Congressional Accountability Act requires this notice be printed in the Congressional Record, therefore I ask unanimous consent that the notice be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. I am sure I speak on behalf of all Senators when I commend Kelly Johnston for the fine job he has done. He has worked here for a number of years in many capacities. He has proven himself to be diligent, efficient, capable. And we are all pleased with the way he has handled matters. We wish him a bright future in the years ahead.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I will support the Defense appropriations bill included in the omnibus appropriations bill that is before us today. I am pleased that our colleagues negotiating these issues with the administration, stood their ground on providing additional funding for defense. While this bill and other appropriations bills provide approximately $10.8 billion above the President's budget request for defense, this is actually $8 billion less for defense, in real terms, than last year's level of funding. Does any Senator believe that we will use our military forces less in fiscal year 1997 than we did this year? I think not. As most of my colleagues know, the administration began negotiations on the final spending levels, insisting on a substantial transfer of funds of $4 to $5 billion, from defense to nondefense discretionary accounts. It is clear that this administration relies a great deal on our military services. It appears more likely every day that our commitments in Bosnia will not end in December as we were told. We already know that the cost of our commitment there has greatly exceeded the administration's original estimate of $2 billion and now exceeds $3.3 billion. We do not know what additional commitments might be laid on our military forces in the Persian Gulf--or as a result of the latest crisis between Israel and the Palestinians. We also do not know when or where our forces might be committed next, but I am confident that the uptempo for our servicemen and women will not decrease. Mr. President, I want to commend the majority leader and other Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives who negotiated these agreements. Like all negotiated outcomes and compromises, no one gets everything they want. I do believe however that the additional funds provided by the Congress for defense, included in this bill, are necessary. Mr. President, this bill will allow us to provide our servicemen and women with more modern equipment, alleviating the administration's negative funding trend for modernization; to improve quality of life for our servicemen and women, who frequently find themselves deployed away from their families for extended periods; and to increase funding for the readiness of our forces that has become increasingly strained to cover the higher uptempo and increasing costs of ongoing operations. This bill recognizes that we must maintain a strong force capable of deploying anywhere in the world at any time. Mr. President, this bill will provide funding for much needed pay raises for our uniformed personnel. It provides funding for anti- terrorism measures to facilitate the protection of our service personnel. It funds shortfalls in the defense health care program as well as many other important programs. I am pleased that President Clinton is no longer trying to reduce defense spending and recognizes the need for additional defense funding over his initial request. I commend my colleagues who negotiated this Defense appropriations bill. I support this bill and urge my colleagues to vote for this important piece of legislation. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. THURMOND

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

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to one of the finest men I have had the privilege to serve with in the U.S. Senate. I refer to my very good friend, the senior Senator from Wyoming, Alan Simpson, who is retiring from the Senate. Al Simpson comes from a family with a rich Wyoming heritage. Mr. President, from territorial days to the present, the Simpsons have made Wyoming justifiably proud of their distinguished public service. His father, Milward, served as Governor and then came to the Senate in 1962. Like his father, Al has a wonderful sense of humor, even if it is sometimes a bit ribald. He calls a sense of human ``the universal solvent against the abrasive elements of life.'' I know of no one who lives up to that motto like my friend, Al Simpson. Al has other sterling qualities that have made him one of the best- liked members of the Senate on either side of the aisle. His personal warmth, his integrity, his loyalty, his sense of fairness, and his willingness to listen to the concerns of his colleagues were attributes that allowed him to do a superb job as assistant Republican leader for 10 years. Bob Dole could not have had a more loyal ``deputy'' than Al. President George Bush never had a more loyal friend than Al. Al spent countless hours on the floor of the Senate and in the media as an advocate and defender of his friend, President Bush. I have served many years in the military and in combat as well and I can attest that Al is the kind of loyal friend who you would want by your side in battle. That includes legislative battles, too. For 18 years--at my initial urging--he served with me on the Senate Judiciary Committee. We have been through a great deal of controversial legislation and nominations together. We have worked together side by side with never a cross word and always the highest level of mutual respect and friendship. When he leaves the Senate, he will leave behind a legacy of great legislative achievements, particularly in the area of immigration. Early on, Al was willing to take on the tough job of being the Republican's subcommittee leader on immigration. While serving as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I appointed Al as chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee. No one appreciates his work more than I. Immigration issues are often emotionally charged. It takes a very talented legislative leader to shepherd significant immigration legislation through Congress. Al has done it with great effectiveness throughout his career, and in this last week of the 104th Congress he once again is about to lead us in the passage of an illegal immigration reform bill of which he can be very proud. He authored the Senate bill, and his influence on the final conference report is without peer. He is tough, but fair, and his word is his bond. Accordingly, he is justly recognized by his colleagues on both sides of the aisle as an incredibly skillful legislator. He is married to one of the most gracious, attractive ladies I have known. As Al tells it, Ann Simpson got more votes for him than he did for himself. She is much more than an effective campaigner. She has made wonderful contributions to her State and the Nation through her work on mental health issues, through her efforts on behalf of Ford's Theater, and in her work for the University of Wyoming, particularly the art museum there. I know that cowboy Al Simpson is not going to ``ride off into the sunset.'' He will maintain an active, stimulating life. His first venture will be a professorship at Harvard University. I am sure his students will be treated to some unforgettable Al Simpson stories which will evoke both laughter and warmth. I will deeply miss that daily dosage of Al's humor and warmth. However, I am confident that we will continue to see each other and the real friendship which we have will endure. God bless both Al and Ann Simpson in all their endeavors. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND. I wish to thank the able Senator.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President; I rise to express my concern regarding the fiscal year 1997 intelligence authorization conference report. I make these observations, not in my capacity as the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, but as an individual Senator concerned about growth in Government bureaucracy. I am particularly concerned by the fact that the intelligence conferees have decided to establish four new senior positions under the Director of Central Intelligence, all requiring Senate confirmation. In addition to a new Deputy Director, which the administration requested, the Intelligence Conferees have agreed to create three new Assistant Directors of Central Intelligence. The administration has clearly indicated its opposition to the establishment of these Assistant Director positions. In my view, this is an unnecessary expansion of bureaucracy at a time when virtually every other area of Government is shrinking. There is no evidence that I am aware of to justify this growth. The Presidential commission that just completed its study of these matters, the Brown Commission, did not make such a recommendation, nor has the Director of Central Intelligence. Since the organization of the Office of the Director of Central Intelligence does not come under the jurisdiction of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Nunn and I have not sought to oppose the establishment of these new positions on behalf of the Armed Services Committee, even though we agree that the case for their creation is not compelling. In the areas where the Armed Services Committee does have jurisdiction, the intelligence conference report has been adjusted to address concerns that Senator Nunn and I raised on behalf of the Armed Services Committee and the Department of Defense. Since the Intelligence Conferees addressed these concerns in a satisfactory manner, Senator Nunn and I have agreed not to oppose the intelligence conference report. Notwithstanding our general satisfaction with the intelligence authorization conference report, Senator Nunn joins me in registering opposition to what we view as an unwarranted expansion of intelligence bureaucracy. It is my intent to follow this matter closely in the future. The executive branch may choose not to fill these positions. Nevertheless, I plan to reexamine the legislation establishing these new positions during the 105th Congress.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the President's veto of legislation to ban partial-birth abortions. The President should have signed this legislation and helped us ban the shocking procedure known as partial-birth abortions. Instead, he ignored the overwhelming evidence that compels the need for this legislation to become law. I heard testimony on this matter from doctors before the Judiciary Committee and without any doubt, the availability of this procedure is indefensible. The former Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, stated, and I quote, ``In no way can I twist my mind to see that partial-birth --and then destruction of the unborn child before the head is born--is a medical necessity for the mother.'' Mr. President, one important issue that must be addressed here is the constitutionality of the partial-birth abortion ban. I believe that based on Supreme Court rulings in this area, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995 would survive a constitutional challenge. In fact, in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania versus Casey the Supreme Court stated, ``The woman's liberty is not so unlimited * * * that from the outset the State cannot show its concern for the life of the unborn, and at a later point in fetal development the State's interest in life has sufficient force so that the right of the woman to terminate the pregnancy can be restricted.'' The Casey decision established the undue burden test with the threshold question being whether the abortion-related statute imposes an undue burden on a mother's right to choose to have an abortion. Mr. President, I believe that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995 would survive constitutional challenge and would be subject to the rational basis scrutiny because it does not impose an undue burden on the mother's right to choose to have an abortion. The legislation is constitutionally sound, serves a legitimate governmental interest, and should become law. The House recently voted to override the President's veto of this important bill and we should join them when the Senate votes on Thursday. I urge my colleagues to override the President's misguided veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995. I wish to thank the able Senator from North Dakota for allowing me to speak at this time. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a very important piece of legislation that would affect every American taxpayer. This measure would prohibit Federal funds from being used to pay Federal employees while working on union business. Mr. President, I was shocked by a recent Government Accounting Office [GAO] report to Congress concerning union activities at the Social Security Administration [SSA]. I understand that Federal employees have the right to be represented by a union. However, I completely disagree that the American taxpayer should foot the bill for this representation. The results of the GAO report are astounding and very disturbing. The GAO reported that over 413,000 hours were spent by Federal employees last year on union activities at the SSA. This cost the American taxpayers approximately $12.6 million in salaries and expenses. This does not even count the amount of time management spent answering union concerns. The cost involved for management to respond may be double the nearly $13 million we spent on the union representatives. The GAO identified 1,800 SSA employees who are authorized by the union to spend time on SSA union activities; I repeat, Mr. President, 1,800 Federal employees, paid by the U.S. Government to do union work. Currently, 146 of those representatives are considered to be full-time. In other words, 146 Federal employees are spending 100 percent of their time at the Social Security Administration working on union activities, not serving Social Security beneficiaries and the taxpayer, but doing full- time union work. These figures are for just one agency. In 1993, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12871, which requires agencies to involve labor organizations as full ``partners'' with management in identifying problems and creating solutions. In the time that this Executive order has been in effect, the cost to the American taxpayer for union activity at SSA alone has more than doubled. Further, Federal employees who are performing union work full-time has jumped from 80 to 146. There are still some 1,654 additional SSA employees working part- time on union activities. Mr. President, this is outrageous. As I stated, these figures are only for the SSA. I have, therefore, requested that the GAO prepare a similar report to the one conducted at SSA, which would address union activity within the entire Federal Government. It is my feeling that the aggregate numbers will be equally as staggering and shocking as those found at SSA. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of legislation, authored by my good friend, Senator Faircloth, which would prohibit using money from the Social Security and Medicare trust funds for union activities at SSA and the Department of Health and Human Services. However, I think we should go even further. No Federal money should be used to subsidize union work within any Government agency. Our Government workers should be attending to the business for which they were hired while on the American taxpayer's time. The union representatives at Federal agencies were not hired to do the work of the unions. They were hired to perform specific duties pertaining to the official business of the Federal agency that employs them. The legislation I am introducing would ensure that union activities at the Federal level are not financed by the already heavily burdened American taxpayer. Mr. President, let the unions pay the salaries and expenses of those who perform union work; and let our tax money be used to do the work of the American people. The able Majority Leader, Senator Lott, Senators Faircloth, Helms, and Kassebaum are original cosponsors. I invite my other colleagues to join us in support of this important measure to correct an absolute misuse of Federal funds. I further ask unanimous consent that the GAO report regarding union activities at the Social Security Administration be included in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a very important piece of legislation that would affect every American taxpayer. This measure would prohibit Federal funds from being used to pay Federal employees while working on union business. Mr. President, I was shocked by a recent Government Accounting Office [GAO] report to Congress concerning union activities at the Social Security Administration [SSA]. I understand that Federal employees have the right to be represented by a union. However, I completely disagree that the American taxpayer should foot the bill for this representation. The results of the GAO report are astounding and very disturbing. The GAO reported that over 413,000 hours were spent by Federal employees last year on union activities at the SSA. This cost the American taxpayers approximately $12.6 million in salaries and expenses. This does not even count the amount of time management spent answering union concerns. The cost involved for management to respond may be double the nearly $13 million we spent on the union representatives. The GAO identified 1,800 SSA employees who are authorized by the union to spend time on SSA union activities; I repeat, Mr. President, 1,800 Federal employees, paid by the U.S. Government to do union work. Currently, 146 of those representatives are considered to be full-time. In other words, 146 Federal employees are spending 100 percent of their time at the Social Security Administration working on union activities, not serving Social Security beneficiaries and the taxpayer, but doing full- time union work. These figures are for just one agency. In 1993, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12871, which requires agencies to involve labor organizations as full ``partners'' with management in identifying problems and creating solutions. In the time that this Executive order has been in effect, the cost to the American taxpayer for union activity at SSA alone has more than doubled. Further, Federal employees who are performing union work full-time has jumped from 80 to 146. There are still some 1,654 additional SSA employees working part- time on union activities. Mr. President, this is outrageous. As I stated, these figures are only for the SSA. I have, therefore, requested that the GAO prepare a similar report to the one conducted at SSA, which would address union activity within the entire Federal Government. It is my feeling that the aggregate numbers will be equally as staggering and shocking as those found at SSA. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of legislation, authored by my good friend, Senator Faircloth, which would prohibit using money from the Social Security and Medicare trust funds for union activities at SSA and the Department of Health and Human Services. However, I think we should go even further. No Federal money should be used to subsidize union work within any Government agency. Our Government workers should be attending to the business for which they were hired while on the American taxpayer's time. The union representatives at Federal agencies were not hired to do the work of the unions. They were hired to perform specific duties pertaining to the official business of the Federal agency that employs them. The legislation I am introducing would ensure that union activities at the Federal level are not financed by the already heavily burdened American taxpayer. Mr. President, let the unions pay the salaries and expenses of those who perform union work; and let our tax money be used to do the work of the American people. The able Majority Leader, Senator Lott, Senators Faircloth, Helms, and Kassebaum are original cosponsors. I invite my other colleagues to join us in support of this important measure to correct an absolute misuse of Federal funds. I further ask unanimous consent that the GAO report regarding union activities at the Social Security Administration be included in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

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

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services, I report favorably 12 nomination lists in the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy which were printed in full in the Congressional Records of November 7, 1995, December 11, 1995, July 17, September 9, 13, and 10, 1996, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar, that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators. In the Navy there are five appointments to the grade of lieutenant (list begins with Brian G. Buck) (Reference No. 715-2). In the Navy there are four promotions to the grade of lieutenant commander (list begins with Jeffry L. Bennett) (Reference No. 768-2). In the Navy there are 630 promotions to the grade of commander (list begins with Rufus S. Abernethy III) (Reference No. 1204). In the Navy there are 1,120 promotions to the grade of lieutenant commander (list begins with Glen F. Abad) (Reference No. 1295). In the Marine Corps there is one promotion to the grade of major (Robert T. Bader) (Reference No. 1300). In the Marine Corps there is one promotion to the grade of major (Wayne D. Szymczyk) (Reference No. 1301). In the Air Force there is one promotion to the grade of colonel (Wendell R. Keller) (Reference No. 1310). In the Air Force there are 18 appointments to the grade of second lieutenant (list begins with Sean P. Abell) (Reference No. 1311). In the Air Force Reserve there are 17 promotions to the grade of lieutenant colonel (list begins with Randall R. Ball) (Reference No. 1312). In the Air Force Reserve there are 35 promotions to the grade of lieutenant colonel (list begins with James E. Ball) (Reference No. 1313). In the Army Reserve there are 25 promotions to the grade of colonel (list begins with Ernest R. Adkins) (Reference No. 1314). In the Army Reserve there are 44 promotions to the grade of lieutenant colonel (list begins with William A. Ayers, Jr.) (Reference No. 1315).

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, pursuant to section 304(b) of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. sec. 1384(b)), a notice of proposed rulemaking was submitted by the Office of Compliance, U.S. Congress. The notice publishes proposed regulations to implement section 210 and section 215 of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995. Section 210 concerns the extension of rights and protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 relating to public services and accommodations. Section 215 concerns the extension of rights and protections under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. Section 304(b) requires this notice to be printed in the Congressional Record, therefore I ask unanimous consent that the notice be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a special South Carolinian and well known Charlestonian, Mrs. Helen Schachte Riley, who passed away last week at the age of 81. Mrs. Riley was a respected community servant and devoted Christian, mother, and wife. Throughout her long and distinguished life, this enthusiastic woman was actively involved in her community and many local and charitable organizations. The strength of a community lies within its citizens, and Helen Riley contributed much to our great city of Charleston. Unquestionably, Mrs. Riley is a role model to many South Carolinians, including her son, Joe Riley, who serves as the Mayor of Charleston. Her legacy lives on and she leaves her children, grandchildren and great grand-children a proud heritage and fond memories of an outstanding and gracious lady. Mr. President, Helen Schachte Riley's family has my deepest sympathies and condolences on their loss. I believe an article from yesterday's Charleston Post and Courier nicely sums up Mrs. Riley's life and many accomplishments, and I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

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

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to commend the able Senator from Texas on this special order to have a discussion on this very important matter. She is a very able member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and stands for a strong defense. She does all she can to promote the welfare of our men and women in uniform. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in urging President Clinton to show his support for our men and women in uniform by indicating his support for the fiscal year 1997 Defense appropriations bill and conference report. In his radio address on September 7, just days after he authorized the cruise missile strikes against Iraq, President Clinton indicated that he would sign the Defense authorization bill. This legislation, the result of our work on the Senate Armed Services Committee this year, authorizes appropriations for defense. In expressing his support for the Defense authorization bill, President Clinton stated: Once more, we have seen that at home and abroad, our servicemen and women go the extra mile for us, and we must go the extra mile for them. This bill makes good our pledge to give our Armed Forces the finest equipment there is so that they have the technological edge to prevail on the battle fields of tomorrow . . . it also carries forward our commitment to give our troops the quality of life they deserve by funding family and troop housing improvements that we want and by providing a raise of 3 percent . . . Mr. President, I believe the President was absolutely right in these statements of support for the Defense authorization bill and his decision to sign it. Yet, here we are within only a week or so of these statements, the administration is attempting to negotiate substantial reductions in the Defense appropriations bill. I have tried to determine why the President might not want to support the Defense appropriations bill. What events have transpired that might have caused him to think that the Defense appropriations bill has too much money for defense? The President has sent additonal airpower, seapower, and ground troops to the Middle East to bolster our military force in that troubled region. Every day, it appears more likely that the United States will have to continue some kind of military presence in Bosnia past the December 20 deadline currently set for the withdrawal of our forces currently serving in Bosnia. In addition, United States forces were recently dispatched to Haiti to help stabilize the government of President Preval. Mr. President, the Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1997 authorizes for appropriations $265.6 billion--$11.2 billion above the President's budget request. However, in real terms, this bill provides $7.4 billion less than last year's defense bill. Mr. President, this is a very modest bill. Is there a Senator here who believes that our military forces will be called upon to do less next fiscal year than we have done in this fiscal year? Mr. President, the Congress has indicated strong support for the amounts of money provided for the Department of Defense in the Defense authorization bill and the Defense appropriations bill. We passed a budget resolution bill which supported this amount for defense. We passed a Defense authorization bill, voting several times in support of the amounts for defense in this bill. I do not believe we should now be negotiating these funds away for what appears to be political gamesmanship. It is clear that this administration relies greatly on our military services. The President must recognize that we must maintain a strong military, capable of performing anywhere in the world and at a moment's notice. Now is the time when the Congress and the administration must stand together in support of our men and women in uniform, as the President himself has stated, ``our service men and women go the extra mile for us, and we must go the extra mile for them.'' I urge the President to indicate clearly his support for the Defense appropriations bill as he has for the Defense authorization bill. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am pleased that included in the amendment offered by the managers is a provision regarding discretionary Airport Improvement Program [AIP] grants to reliever airports. This language would clarify one of the factors that the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] considers in determining grants from the discretionary fund. The AIP provides grants to airports which help insure the safety of air travel in this Country. Seventy-five percent of the money distributed annually from the AIP is allocated to primary and reliever airports from the discretionary grant fund. In determining whether to make a grant to improve an airport, the Secretary of Transportation considers three criteria: First, the capacity of the national air transportation system; second, the costs and benefits of a project; and third, the financial commitment to be made from sources other than the Federal Government. Mr. President, language included in the amendment offered by the managers clarifies the second criteria, the costs-benefit analysis. Currently, the FAA does not consider the cost savings to the primary airport in its analysis of improvements to the reliever airport even though they might be cheaper than expenditures to upgrade the primary airport. In other words, a small investment could be made to upgrade capacity at a reliever airport that would result in very large cost savings at the primary airport. However, this does not qualify as a positive cost-to-benefit comparison under the FAA interpretation. Mr. President, the Rock Hill-York County Airport, a small facility that serves the north central part of South Carolina, is experiencing difficulties with their grant application due to this interpretation. The Rock Hill Airport is a designated reliever airport to the growing Charlotte/Douglas International Airport. In 1991, the FAA published a Capacity Enhancement Plan for the Charlotte Airport that recommended upgrading the capabilities at the reliever airports serving Charlotte. It was estimated that if the Rock Hill Airport were equipped to handle general and corporate aviation during bad weather, the Charlotte Airport would save $5.6 million per year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a letter from Mr. T. J. Orr, Aviation Director of the Charlotte Airport, that outlines this situation be inserted in the Congressional Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. THURMOND. Pursuant to this report, the Rock Hill-York County Airport applied to the FAA for a $350,000 airport improvement grant to install an instrument landing system [ILS]. However, the FAA will not consider the cost savings to Charlotte in the application submitted by Rock Hill. Further, they base their decision solely on the number of flight operations currently at Rock Hill. Mr. President, this puts Rock Hill in dilemma. They cannot demonstrate the required number of operations to satisfy the FAA because they do not have an ILS and they cannot get the required number of operations without the ILS. While I believe the FAA is wrong, it appears that legislation is needed to correct this problem. I thank the managers for including language in their amendment that will force the FAA to examine this situation. Exhibit 1 Charlotte/Douglas International Airport, Charlotte, NC, October 10, 1995. Ms. Carolyn Blum, Regional Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, Southern Region, College Park, GA. Dear Ms. Blum: The Federal Aviation Administration, airport operators, and the users of the national air transportation system a few years ago initiated Airport Capacity Design Teams to identify, develop and evaluate means of reducing delays at high activity airports, such as Charlotte. Ancillary benefits based upon implementation of a number of these recommendations have resulted in increased air traffic control system safety and efficiency. In April of 1991, the Charlotte/Douglas International Airport Capacity Enhancement Plan, completed by the Charlotte Capacity Design Team, was published by the Federal Aviation Administration. This plan was the result of a two year collaborative effort by a design team which included representatives from: the FAA System Capacity and Requirements Office; the FAA Technical Center, Aviation Capacity Branch; the FAA Southern Region Air Traffic Division, Airway Facilities Division, Airport District Office, and the Charlotte Tower; USAir, Air Transport Association; Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association; and the City of Charlotte's Aviation Department. One of the key recommendations of this plan was the upgrade of capabilities and services offered by the reliever airports serving the Charlotte area. In fact, an estimated savings of $5.6 million per year in 1991 dollars was forecast as a result of reducing demand at the Charlotte/Douglas International Airport generated by general aviation, business and corporate aviation demand. Much of this demand at the Charlotte/Douglas International Airport occurs during critical periods of instrument meteorological conditions when reliever airports are simply not equipped to serve aircraft in these weather conditions. The resultant involuntary movement of general aviation, business and corporate aircraft from a reliever airport to a major commercial service airport hub could not come at a worse time or under worse conditions. In recognition of these critical capacity, efficiency and safety issues, the Rock Hill-York County Airport, an FAA designated reliever airport to the Charlotte/Douglas International Airport, has applied to the FAA Southern Region for approval and funding of an AIP project to upgrade its Runway 02 Localizer to a full Runway 02 ILS by the addition of a glideslope and related improvements. The benefits of lowering the approach minima to Rock Hill Airport, as a result of these improvements, will accrue a substantial benefit to the Charlotte/Douglas International Airport as promised in the Charlotte/Douglas International Airport Capacity Enhancement Plan. Because of Rock Hill's willingness to fund a major portion of this project's capital, design and maintenance costs from non-FAA funding sources, it appears this is a project of excellent value if the FAA considers its overall infrastructure benefits. I strongly endorse this initiative by Rock Hill and would appreciate your help in assisting Rock Hill in obtaining the necessary project approval and funding on a priority basis. Thank you for your kind consideration of this matter. Best personal regards, T.J. Orr, Aviation Director. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services, I report favorably 29 nomination lists in the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps and Navy which were printed in full in the Congressional Records of December 11, 1995, May 22, 1996, July 11, 17, 19, and 29, 1996, September 3, and 9, 1996, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar, that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, each day the Senate is in session, at least one Member rises to pay tribute to a friend, a constituent, or a colleague who has distinguished himself, or has decided to leave Government service. Today, Most members of this body are taking to the floor to say ``goodbye'' to a gentleman who has not only been a fixture of the U.S. Senate for many years, but has grown to be a friend to most of us, Sergeant at Arms Howard Greene. Howard is one of those unique individuals who has spent most of his adult life here on Capitol Hill. Beginning his career just outside this chamber as a doorkeeper, Howard worked hard and moved up the ladder of administrative jobs in the Senate, taking over the position of Secretary to the Majority at the beginning of the 104th Congress, later assuming the duties of the Sergeant at Arms. In every job he held, Howard distinguished himself as an individual of ability, dedication, and character, and he earned the respect of Members from both sides of the aisle for his thoroughness and commitment. As the Republican Party had not held control of the Senate since the 1980's Howard had a challenging task before him at the beginning of the 104th Congress. No doubt, his encyclopedic knowledge of the history, traditions, and procedures of this great body aided him greatly as he administered to his tasks as Secretary to the Majority and Sergeant at Arms. I am certain that all would agree that the transfer of power from the Democrats to Republicans was smooth, and that the functions over which Howard had responsibility functioned efficiently and effectively during his tenure. Mr. President, as you know, Howard Greene is about to end his service to the U.S. Senate. He can be proud of the work he has done as a part of this institution during his many years on the Hill, and I know that each of us wishes him good health, great success, and much happiness in the years to come. Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in discussing reform of our tax system. I commend the Senator from Georgia, for his leadership on this issue. I wish to address another aspect of our unfair tax system--the estate tax. Today I am introducing a bill to repeal the Federal estate and gift taxes and the tax on generation-skipping transfers. This bill is very simple. It repeals, in its entirety, subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. This repeal is effective for estates of decedents dying and gifts and generation-skipping transfers made after the date of enactment. Mr. President, the Federal estate and gift tax structure is perhaps the most unfair and inefficient revenue source used by our Government. First, these taxes represent multiple taxation on savings and investment. Income is initially taxed when it is earned. If any of that income is saved, the earnings on the savings are taxed. A third level of taxation occurs as capital gains taxes are paid. Finally, after a lifetime of savings and investment, estate and gift taxes are assessed. Estate and gift tax rates are much higher than income tax rates. Second, these taxes inhibit economic growth and job creation. Family owned businesses, farms, and ranches are the source of most new jobs created in the United States. Yet it is these family owned businesses that are most affected by estate and gift taxes. In many cases, family businesses do not have sufficient liquid assets to pay estate taxes upon the death of the owner. Frequently the business is liquidated or they sell the farm. As a result, jobs are lost and economic activity ceases. Estate and gift taxes further stifle economic growth because of the increased cost for capital accumulation. When lifetime savings are taxed at high rates, the incentive to save is reduced. Spending and consumption replaces savings and investment. As a result, wage rates and employment suffer. Third, estate and gift taxes result in economic inefficiencies, as taxpayers attempt to avoid or minimize these taxes, or allocate resources for estate planning. A survey by the Center for the Study of Taxation found that 80 percent of owners of family businesses reported taking some steps to plan for estate taxes. Such mechanisms included life insurance, buy/sell agreements, restructuring family partnerships and trusts, and charitable bequests. According to a report on this survey, 62 percent of the family businesses stated they would not have spent the time or money on estate planning. They did so because they felt estate and gift taxes threatened the survival of their businesses. Mr. President, with all the negative economic consequences resulting from estate and gift taxes, one must ask if these taxes are worth the cost. I, and many others, have concluded they are not. There is a misconception that such taxes only affect the very wealthy and that these taxes generate large amounts of revenue. The fact is, these taxes impact everyone, directly or indirectly. Furthermore, these taxes are a minor revenue source for the Federal Government, accounting for only 1 percent of total Federal receipts. The amounts actually collected must be offset by the billions spent each year for enforcement and compliance activities. Mr. President, it is time to abolish Federal estate and gift taxes. These taxes are unfair and inefficient. They hinder economic growth, destroying family businesses and jobs. They result in resources being diverted to estate planning activities, away from economic growth. These consequences, as well as the actual costs of collecting these taxes, do not justify such taxes or the minimal revenues they produce. I urge my colleagues to support repeal of the Federal estate and gift taxes. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed following my remarks.

Mr. THURMOND

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

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.