J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to thank the able Senator from Georgia, Senator Nunn, for his remarks on these defense matters, and also Senator Warner of Virginia. Defense, I say again, is nonpartisan; military matters and nominations are nonpartisan. Why there is an objection here to the taking up of nominations of the President of the United States for military nominations is beyond me. Why there is objection here to the taking up a defense bill agreed to on both sides, that we can finish in 20 minutes, an objection to taking it up is beyond me. After all, defense is for the whole country. These military nominations are for the whole country. I hope that the leadership on the Democratic side that is objecting to taking up these matters would relent and let us go ahead and pass these matters. The House yesterday passed this defense conference report in 1 hour. I think we can pass it in 20 minutes. Again, I ask the leadership on the Democratic side to reconsider this matter and take up these defense matters which are for the benefit of the whole country.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on the Executive Calendar: Calendar Nos. 687 through 709, 711 through 715 and all nominations placed on the Secretary's desk in the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that the Senate then return to legislative session. I might say, these are military nominations.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, John Wayne, ``The Duke''. The mere name evokes in people around the world powerful images and fond recollections of the late actor and great American. Though he has been gone for 17 years, his spirit clearly lives on through his many movies and in the minds of his millions of fans. On August 17th, hundreds of people who admire this great man will gather in Los Angeles, CA to pay tribute to an individual who is a legend and an institution. Americans are a tough lot. We are a nation that was founded by men and women of great courage, strength, and morals. It took tough and determined people to win our independence from the British; to fight for the cause of the Confederacy or the Union; to tame the wild west; to twice lead the world to victory in two vicious global wars; and, to have led the fight against forces bent on subjugating the freedom loving people of the world under the corrupt doctrine of godless Communists. Americans are individuals who admire self-reliance, honesty, and fairness, and without question, John Wayne was someone who personified these traits as a man, and who brought these qualities to the silver screen through his prolific career as an actor, director, and producer. In countless movies, John Wayne portrayed mythic figures of American lore. Characters that included cowboys, lawmen, soldiers, sailors, and marines in films such as ``Stagecoach,'' ``The Sands of Iwo Jima,'' ``The Fighting Seabees,'' ``The Shootist,'' ``The Green Berets,'' ``True Grit,'' and dozens of other titles that soon became classics. It was impossible not to admire John Wayne and the roles he played for they all embodied the ideals that Americans hold dear. Moviegoers knew that if ``The Duke'' took a swing at someone, they deserved it, or if John Wayne fired a weapon, it was only to protect the life of an innocent person, to uphold the law, or to help defend the Nation. The characters John Wayne played were decent men committed to doing what is honorable and just, and for those reasons, he will be remembered as a American icon for many generations to come. Mr. President, the United States is a nation that is made up of men and women who labor tirelessly to make our county a better place. Few people think about the police officers and firefighters who put their lives on the line, or the tens of thousands of service members spread around the world protecting American security, or the nurses who tend to our sick. Day in and day out, these people carry out heroic acts with little or no recognition. John Wayne portrayed these people in his films, and they saw their efforts chronicled and, in The Duke, these Americans saw a little bit of themselves. There will probably never again be another actor who so embodies all the best qualities of our Nation. There will certainly never be another John Wayne.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Colonel Garrett ``Gary'' D. Bourne, as he prepares to retire from his career as an officer and a soldier in the United States Army. Gary Bourne began his career more than 28 years ago when he was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Field Artillery, and spending his first tour of duty with the 82d Airborne Division. Throughout his career, Gary Bourne has expertly met the many challenges of military service as an Army officer, and he has faithfully served his Nation in a variety of command and staff assignments throughout the world including the continental United States, Vietnam, Europe, Southwest Asia, and Panama. If there is one thing an officer in the Army wants to do, it is to command troops, and Gary Bourne has done so at the battery and battalion levels. He ultimately held the much coveted position of Brigade Commander when he was tapped to lead the 210th Field Artillery Brigade. During his time with the 210th, the United States faced down Saddam Hussien, and Colonel Bourne was responsible for leading his brigade from Germany to Southwest Asia where his unit served as the covering force artillery commander for the VII Corps during Operation Desert Storm. From 1987-1990, Colonel Bourne traded in his Battle Dress Uniform for a suit and tie and joined the Army Legislative Liaison Office to the U.S. Senate. During those three years many of us came to know this dedicated officer who tirelessly worked to represent the interests of the Army to members of this Chamber, as well as to assist us with matters related to the Army. After an almost three decade career in the Army, Colonel Bourne will soon leave his present post as Chief of Staff of the Fifth United States Army and bring his service to the Nation to an end. The Colonel's career has been distinguished, and it has been marked by his commitment to duty and selflessness. I commend Colonel Bourne on his career of accomplishment and wish him and his wife good health and great happiness in the years to come.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, on behalf of myself and Senators Faircloth, Hollings, Coats, and Helms, to correct one of the most inequitable and unfair policies of our Government--the Federal aid to highways distribution formulas. Currently, our Federal Aid to Highways Program collects 18.3 cents tax on each gallon of gasoline. That money is then sent to the Federal Treasury where deductions are made for deficit reduction and other Department of Transportation programs. The remainder is then apportioned among the States by statutory formulas which is used for infrastructure projects. In 1995, South Carolina received 52 cents for each dollar its citizens contributed to the fund. Other States were allocated $2 or more for each dollar contributed. This disparity is inexcusable. This donor State system was originally devised to build the Interstate Highway System. In order to build highways across the vast expanses of the less populated Western States, it was necessary to incorporate a system in which some States contribute more than they receive. Next year, the last segment of the Interstate System will be completed. Subsequently, all our surface transportation priorities will then be local, but the donor/donee system with its unfair formulas will still be in place. The statutory formulas are largely based on 1950's population data. Needless to say, there have been great population shifts in this country since that time. As a result, high-growth States have become desperate to find money to cope with the growing demand for highway construction and maintenance. Other States, however, are allocated such an excess amount that some of their funds go unused. In some cases they seek legislation to use the money for more exotic transportation purposes. We should not be building roads where people have been--we shoud build them where they are or where they are going. The present situation is equivalent to laying railroad tracks behind the train. It is inefficient, wasteful, and does not address the transportation needs of our Nation. Unlike other programs, our Federal aid highway system was intended to be a user fee system where the gas taxes motorists pay go to maintain and improve the roads on which they drive. Unfortunately, the current system does not work in that manner. For example, when a school teacher in Mt. Pleasant, SC, buys gas to commute to her job in Charleston, she should expect that the tax she has paid is going to pay part of the cost of replacing the Cooper River Bridge which is in danger of collapse. Instead, 48 cents of each dollar she pays in gas tax goes to finance projects in other States. On the other hand, when a school teacher in one of the donee States does the same thing, she receives more than double her money back in road improvements. This is simply unfair. The donor States have made tremendous sacrifices to build the Interstate System from which we all benefit. They have for years postponed addressing critical highway needs at home. The time has come for our national policy to recognize this contribution and address this issue fairly. Mr. President, the bill we are introducing is simple. It stipulates that the portion of the Federal highway distribution to a State in each year shall be equal to its percentage of all contributions to the fund. In other words, if South Carolina contributes 1.8 percent of the trust fund in a year, it would get back 1.8 percent of whatever amount is appropriated out of the fund that year. Further, my bill would establish a 5-year program to bring the historic donor States into parity with the rest of the country. After implementation of this bill then we will have a Federal Highway Program that is fair to all. Mr. President, if we are to reauthorize a Federal Highway Program, it must be a fair one. My bill presents a fair and equitable formula for doing this. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, on behalf of myself and Senators Faircloth, Hollings, Coats, and Helms, to correct one of the most inequitable and unfair policies of our Government--the Federal aid to highways distribution formulas. Currently, our Federal Aid to Highways Program collects 18.3 cents tax on each gallon of gasoline. That money is then sent to the Federal Treasury where deductions are made for deficit reduction and other Department of Transportation programs. The remainder is then apportioned among the States by statutory formulas which is used for infrastructure projects. In 1995, South Carolina received 52 cents for each dollar its citizens contributed to the fund. Other States were allocated $2 or more for each dollar contributed. This disparity is inexcusable. This donor State system was originally devised to build the Interstate Highway System. In order to build highways across the vast expanses of the less populated Western States, it was necessary to incorporate a system in which some States contribute more than they receive. Next year, the last segment of the Interstate System will be completed. Subsequently, all our surface transportation priorities will then be local, but the donor/donee system with its unfair formulas will still be in place. The statutory formulas are largely based on 1950's population data. Needless to say, there have been great population shifts in this country since that time. As a result, high-growth States have become desperate to find money to cope with the growing demand for highway construction and maintenance. Other States, however, are allocated such an excess amount that some of their funds go unused. In some cases they seek legislation to use the money for more exotic transportation purposes. We should not be building roads where people have been--we shoud build them where they are or where they are going. The present situation is equivalent to laying railroad tracks behind the train. It is inefficient, wasteful, and does not address the transportation needs of our Nation. Unlike other programs, our Federal aid highway system was intended to be a user fee system where the gas taxes motorists pay go to maintain and improve the roads on which they drive. Unfortunately, the current system does not work in that manner. For example, when a school teacher in Mt. Pleasant, SC, buys gas to commute to her job in Charleston, she should expect that the tax she has paid is going to pay part of the cost of replacing the Cooper River Bridge which is in danger of collapse. Instead, 48 cents of each dollar she pays in gas tax goes to finance projects in other States. On the other hand, when a school teacher in one of the donee States does the same thing, she receives more than double her money back in road improvements. This is simply unfair. The donor States have made tremendous sacrifices to build the Interstate System from which we all benefit. They have for years postponed addressing critical highway needs at home. The time has come for our national policy to recognize this contribution and address this issue fairly. Mr. President, the bill we are introducing is simple. It stipulates that the portion of the Federal highway distribution to a State in each year shall be equal to its percentage of all contributions to the fund. In other words, if South Carolina contributes 1.8 percent of the trust fund in a year, it would get back 1.8 percent of whatever amount is appropriated out of the fund that year. Further, my bill would establish a 5-year program to bring the historic donor States into parity with the rest of the country. After implementation of this bill then we will have a Federal Highway Program that is fair to all. Mr. President, if we are to reauthorize a Federal Highway Program, it must be a fair one. My bill presents a fair and equitable formula for doing this. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I want to urge the Senate to consider the conference report on the national defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1997 before we adjourn for the August Recess. I need not remind my colleagues that the Constitution vests the power to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy and to make rules for the Government and regulation of land and naval forces in the Congress. We execute that power through the Defense authorization bill which is currently awaiting consideration by the Senate. The 1997 national defense authorization bill provides the funds and authorities for the Department of Defense to carry out its functions for the coming fiscal year. It is a good bill that provides critical funding for our forces deployed around the globe in support of our national security. It would be a travesty if the security and welfare of our forces is put at risk because of political squabbling in the Senate. Throughout my 40 years on the Senate Armed Services Committee, it has been my philosophy that national defense is a bipartisan effort. The conference report that is pending before the Senate is a bipartisan effort. It passed the House last night by an overwhelming vote. It will pass the Senate in the same bipartisan vote if given a chance. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to work with the leadership to resolve the deadlock that is holding up consideration of the Defense authorization bill by the Senate. We owe it to the Nation, but more importantly we owe it to the men and women in uniform who are deployed to the trouble spots throughout the world. Mr. President, I would also like to request that before the Senate recesses, it approve the military nominations that are pending. The nominations are not political and we must not allow these nominations, some of which are for critical positions, to be delayed any longer. Thank you Mr. President. I yield the floor. Mr. HEFLIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, the House passed the defense authorization bill yesterday in one hour. I think we can pass it here in one hour. All I ask is that my colleagues not object to bringing it up. This is a matter of deep concern to the whole Nation, to those in the service, and to the defense of our country. We need to take this bill up and pass it. It has a lot of things in it that need to be acted upon. We also have some military nominations, uniform people. There is no reason in the world to hold them up. These are nonpartisan matters. They don't affect anybody personally, but they affect the whole Nation. I hope we can get this bill up, pass it briefly, and send it on to the President.

Mr. THURMOND. Since defense is a nonpartisan matter, and Senator Nunn, the ranking member of the committee, favors going ahead, and I as chairman favor going ahead, and it is purely nonpartisan--that is the way we handle defense, and that is the way it should be handled--why not take it up and pass it? We can get through with it in an hour.

Mr. THURMOND. Do you object to bringing it up? Don't put it in the category of other things. Keep defense as a nonpartisan matter. That is what we are trying to assure that ought to be done.

Mr. THURMOND. Everything is not nonpartisan. This affects the whole Nation. This affects the defense of this country.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Thurmond pertaining to the introduction of S. 2022 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the emergence of South Carolina as a center for business and industry is due to many factors including a temperate climate, a trained and enthusiastic workforce, cooperative government officials, and not the least significant, community leaders committed to bringing new jobs into their towns, cities, and counties. One of the fastest growing areas of the Palmetto State is the region known as the Upstate, and a gentleman by the name of Harry M. ``Mac'' Johnston, played a key role in business development in Union County, until his recent and untimely death. Mr. Johnston served as the director of the Union County Development Board for slightly more than 2 years, a short tenure to be certain. Despite the brevity of his administration, cut tragically short by a stroke, Mr. Johnston managed to achieve several important accomplishments that will be of great benefit to his fellow citizens. Thanks to the efforts of the late Mr. Johnston, the historic Buffalo Mill was purchased and re-opened, Union County was named as the home of South Carolina's new Juvenile Justice facility, and Upstate residents will celebrate community spirit this fall at the first ever ``Uniquely Union Festival.'' Without question, these are three excellent examples of Mr. Johnston's abilities as a civic booster and promoter of Union County, and had his life not been ended so abruptly, I am confident that he would have continued to have played an important role in the development of Union County. Mr. President, the impact Mr. Johnston had in Union County was tremendous. He was a very capable and well liked man, and in memory of the many contributions he made to his community, the County Council recently voted to name the new county industrial park after this man. This is a fitting tribute to a person who dedicated so much of his efforts to making our State a better place to live. I commend the Union County Council on the honor they have paid Mr. Johnston and I extend my deepest condolences to his family on the loss they have suffered.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference report to H.R. 3734, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. This legislation reforms welfare to emphasize fundamental American values. It rewards work and self reliance, promotes personal responsibility, and renews a sense of hope in the future. Additionally, the bill slows the growth of Federal welfare spending, thus reducing the Federal budget deficit by $55 billion over 6 years. The measure does provide sufficient increases in spending to protect vulnerable populations. This Congress previously passed two welfare reform bills. The President subsequently vetoed those bills, despite his 1992 campaign pledge to end welfare as we know it. I hope as we send him another bill, that the President will finally keep his pledge on this issue, and sign the bill. Mr. President, more than 30 years ago the Federal Government declared its War on Poverty. Since then, the number of individuals receiving aid to families with dependent children has more than tripled. Over two- thirds of these recipients are children. The increase in the number of children receiving public assistance is closely related to the dramatic increase in births to unmarried women, particularly to teenage young women. Mr. President, the War on Poverty has inflicted many casualties. Multiple generations of children have grown to adulthood, continuing welfare as a way of life. Mothers and children have been abandoned. Families have been destroyed by long-term dependence on Government. The War on Poverty has been costly, both in terms of human suffering and taxpayer dollars spent. In contrast, this reform measure takes steps to promote stable families and discourage illegitimacy. We recognize many children in America are vulnerable. In response to this need, the bill guarantees they will continue to receive the support they need. In doing so, the prospects of children in welfare families are greatly improved. Mr. President, the measure before us is built on five main principles, which I believe are supported by residents of South Carolina and by the American people in general. I would like to briefly summarize these pillars of welfare reform. First, welfare should not be a way of life. By placing lifetime limits on benefits, this bill ensures that welfare will be temporary assistance to those who are in need. The second principle is work, not welfare. Able-bodied beneficiaries will, for the first time ever, be required to work for their benefits. This principle is designed to restore dignity to the individual and fairness to the system. Third, welfare for noncitizens and felons will be limited. The bill provides adequate exceptions for emergency benefits, for refugees, and for those who have contributed to this Nation by paying taxes for 10 years or through military service. Fourth, the bill encourages personal responsibility to halt rising illegitimacy rates. This legislation seeks to counter that trend by increasing efforts to establish paternity and enforce child support orders. Furthermore, the bill encourages the formation and maintenance of two-parent families. Finally, this legislation returns responsibility and flexibility to the States. The national Government has an obligation to promote the general welfare of the United States. At the same time, we know that those who are closest to the problem are better able to provide for the specific welfare of needy individuals. This bill establishes general guidelines and provides broad cash welfare and child care block grants. With this flexibility States can design programs that meet local conditions and particular needs. Mr. President, like the two vetoed bills that preceded it, this bill has many provisions that will encourage work and education, lessen dependency on the Government, and foster an environment to reduce unwed and teen pregnancy. The legislation also ensures that needy Americans will receive a wide range of services including cash assistance, child care, food stamps, medical care, child nutrition, and disability payments. The bill also contains strong provisions related to child support enforcement, child protection, foster care, and adoption assistance. I compliment the managers of the bill who have brought historic reform to our welfare system. This bill deserves our support. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. I thank the able Senator from Alaska.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of S. 1936, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1996. In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which directed the Department of Energy to develop a permanent repository for highly radioactive waste from nuclear powerplants and defense facilities. This act was amended in 1987 to limit DOE's repository development activities to a single site at Yucca Mountain, NV. Since 1983, electric consumers have been taxed almost $12 billion to finance the development of a permanent storage site. Despite DOE's obligation to take title to spent nuclear fuel in 1998, a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain will not be ready to accept this waste until the year 2010, at the earliest. Mr. President, a July 16, 1996, Washington Post editorial states that the nuclear waste storage situation is not yet a fully urgent problem. I believe that it is a fully urgent problem. Currently, nuclear waste is stored in 41 States at facilities that were never intended for long-term storage. At least 23 nuclear reactors are nearing full storage capacity for their spent fuel. According to a Washington Post article from December 31, 1995, every day, 6 more tons of high-level radioactive waste pile up at the Nation's 109 nuclear powerplants, a total of some 30,000 tons of spent fuel rods so far. If it were all shaped into midsize cars, it would fill every parking space at the Pentagon--twice over--with material that will be dangerous for centuries. And there's nowhere for it to go. On July 23, 1996, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit correctly ruled that DOE must begin disposing of this waste by 1998. Unless we designate an appropriate storage site soon, DOE will be unable to safely fulfill this obligation. Without a central interim site, DOE may be forced to use existing DOE facilities that are unsuitable for waste storage. Or, if DOE continues to evade its obligation to store waste by 1998, facility operators may then have to expand onsite storage at an additional cost to ratepayers. Powerplants may have to close down, adversely affecting the reliability of electric services and depleting funding for the Federal disposal program. Because DOE will fail to provide an appropriate facility for this waste on time, we must designate a temporary central storage site immediately. Anything less would be irresponsible and dangerous to the environment. The most logical location for an interim site is Yucca Mountain. Transportation of spent nuclear fuel is a delicate undertaking, so it is sensible to locate an interim facility as near to the likely permanent facility as is possible. We have already spent 13 years and $6 billion to find a permanent repository site and conduct development activities at Yucca Mountain. Designating a central interim storage facility and continuing to develop a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain is our most reasonable course of action. S. 1936 provides a safe, efficient, and responsible means for reaching this objective. I would like to commend Senator Craig and Senator Murkowski for their excellent work on this bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of final passage. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Again, I thank the Senator from Alaska. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services, I report favorably the attached listing of nominations. Those identified with a double asterisk (**) are to lie on the Secretary's desk for the information of any Senator, since these names have already appeared in the Records of May 17, 1996, June 3, 18, and July 9, 11, 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. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 5051

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, this is a joint statement by Senator Nunn and myself on behalf of the Committee on Armed Services. Today, the Armed Services Committee voted unanimously to favorably report the nomination of Adm. Jay Johnson for reappointment to the grade of admiral and assignment as the Chief of Naval Operations. The vote followed both a closed session and an open hearing of the Committee on Armed Services in which the Members considered information provided by the Department of Defense relevant to admiral Johnson's qualifications to be Chief of Naval Operations. During the hearing, Admiral Johnson discussed his attendance at Tailhook. In addressing the Committee he stated, ``While I can't change the past, I can--and did--learn from it; so did the rest of the Navy. I was cautioned by the Secretary of the Navy for not being proactive in monitoring the conduct of junior officers and not taking effective action to prevent misconduct at Tailhook '91. Because I was there and have seen and felt first hand how much Tailhook hurt our great Navy, I am even more committed to ensuring that such an atmosphere will never again be tolerated.'' Information provided by the Department of Defense relevant to the nomination is available at the Committee Office for review personally by Senators.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to rise today and pay tribute to Maj. Gen. Normand G. Lezy, the Director of Air Force Legislative Liaison, whose 2-year tenure in that position is about to come to an end. The support that the 535 Members of Congress, and various committees of the House and Senate, receive from the legislative liaison offices of the four military services and the Coast Guard is critical to allowing us to serve our constituents. The men and women who work in these congressional relations offices are known to be courteous, responsive, and excellent representatives of their individual branches of the military. Clearly, the high standards these soldiers, marines, sailors, coast guardsmen, and airmen adhere to are set by those who head the various legislative liaison missions. These are officers who bring a wealth of experience, professionalism, and knowledge with them when they assume these highly visible and extremely demanding positions. For the past 24 months, the Air Force has been well served by General Lezy, an officer with 21 years of experience, and whose broad background not only gives him an understanding of Air Force operations that few can match, but which has aided him greatly as he worked to meet the needs and demands of those in Congress. From his days as a young second lieutenant in the 3355th Student Squadron, where he assumed the duties of administrative officer, to his work at the Pentagon, General Lezy has repeatedly demonstrated his abilities as an officer and his commitment to selflessly working for the security of the United States. Without question, the Air Force Legislative Liaison office has benefited from his command. Mr. President, I am certain that my colleagues both on the Armed Services Committee and in the Senate would echo my commendations of General Lezy, the support he has provided us, and the service he has rendered our Nation. I wish the general great health and much happiness in the years to come, and I am sure that he will continue to play a key role in continuing to protect the ideals, interests, and people of the United States.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, this amendment, offered by Senator Coverdell and other Senators including myself, would fully fund the President's International Narcotics Control Account request of $213 million for drug interdiction and eradication efforts. Funds would come from the International Organizations and Program accounts, which are $31 million over the President's request, and from Development Assistance. Mr. President, Mr. Matthew Robinson, writing in Investors Business Daily, has brought out certain points which I think are very important. He says: The Drug Enforcement Agency has lost 227 agents from September '92 to September '95. Clinton issued an executive order reducing military interdiction efforts, including the elimination of 1,000 antidrug positions. He shortened mandatory minimum sentences for drug traffickers. He tried to slash the staff of the Office of National Drug Control Policy by 80% to 25 from 146. Congress has restored funding for some of those slots. In his '95 budget, he proposed cutting funds for the U.S. Customs Service, the DEA, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the U.S. Coast Guard. The result would have meant 621 fewer agents. Congress again restored some of this funding. The drug effort has suffered on another level, critics say. The first is in the actual fight against street drugs. Interdiction efforts have suffered under Clinton, drug warriors say. The military's budget for drug enforcement grew from $4.9 million in '82 to more than $1 billion in '92. It was cut back under Clinton to $700 million in '95. Mr. President, this amendment should be agreed to. We need to do more in controlling this drug situation, and I urge the Senate to adopt this amendment. I think it will be very helpful. I thank the able Senator.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleague from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, and several others Senators to sponsor the Emergency Safeguard Act of 1996. This legislation corrects a loophole created by the passage of NAFTA that has allowed Canadian suit makers an unfair advantage in the United States marketplace. Currently, over 140,000 people are employed in the textile and apparel industry in South Carolina. Several thousand of these jobs supply or manufacture men's and boys' wool suits, sport coats, and slacks. These jobs are in jeopardy due in part to a manipulation of the tariff preference level [TPL] by Canada. The TPL, which was established under the Canadian Free-Trade Agreement, was originally designed to allow special trade benefits to wool products made in Canada from foreign wool fabric when that fabric could not be sourced in either Canada or the United States. However, Canada has begun sourcing wool fabric from other countries, despite the fact that fabric is available from NAFTA countries. Canada has been importing fabric from Turkey, Italy, China, and Korea to make items which are shipped into the United States under the favorable NAFTA tariffs. Canada has seized on the TPL loophole to specifically target and flood the United States market with men's and boys' tailored wool apparel. The import surges are causing layoffs and is putting the future of the domestic wool apparel industry in jeopardy. Mr. President, this legislation would place a reasonable sublimit on tailored wool apparel exported through the TPL to the United States by Canada. The size of the TPL would not change, but Canada would be prohibited from using it in a damaging way. This language is necessary because NAFTA eliminated the safeguard for U.S. industries to prevent injurious imports from flooding the U.S. market. Due to NAFTA, the domestic apparel industry has no recourse in stemming the damage caused by Canada while all other industries have this protection. Therefore, legislation is needed to correct this inequity. Mr. President, I hope this measure can be expeditiously considered to bring relief to the domestic textile and apparel industry.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleague from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, and several others Senators to sponsor the Emergency Safeguard Act of 1996. This legislation corrects a loophole created by the passage of NAFTA that has allowed Canadian suit makers an unfair advantage in the United States marketplace. Currently, over 140,000 people are employed in the textile and apparel industry in South Carolina. Several thousand of these jobs supply or manufacture men's and boys' wool suits, sport coats, and slacks. These jobs are in jeopardy due in part to a manipulation of the tariff preference level [TPL] by Canada. The TPL, which was established under the Canadian Free-Trade Agreement, was originally designed to allow special trade benefits to wool products made in Canada from foreign wool fabric when that fabric could not be sourced in either Canada or the United States. However, Canada has begun sourcing wool fabric from other countries, despite the fact that fabric is available from NAFTA countries. Canada has been importing fabric from Turkey, Italy, China, and Korea to make items which are shipped into the United States under the favorable NAFTA tariffs. Canada has seized on the TPL loophole to specifically target and flood the United States market with men's and boys' tailored wool apparel. The import surges are causing layoffs and is putting the future of the domestic wool apparel industry in jeopardy. Mr. President, this legislation would place a reasonable sublimit on tailored wool apparel exported through the TPL to the United States by Canada. The size of the TPL would not change, but Canada would be prohibited from using it in a damaging way. This language is necessary because NAFTA eliminated the safeguard for U.S. industries to prevent injurious imports from flooding the U.S. market. Due to NAFTA, the domestic apparel industry has no recourse in stemming the damage caused by Canada while all other industries have this protection. Therefore, legislation is needed to correct this inequity. Mr. President, I hope this measure can be expeditiously considered to bring relief to the domestic textile and apparel industry.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I rise today, along with my colleague from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, to introduce an amendment to restore funding for three agricultural research projects that are conducted by Clemson University. While I am aware that funding is limited this year for all programs, these particular research projects will benefit all American farmers. The alternative cropping systems project is a joint research effort with Clemson University, the University of Georgia, and North Carolina State University, which is conducting research in production and marketing of alternative crops to the traditional agronomic crops grown in the southeast. To continue this research, $232,000 is needed. The peach tree short life research project is currently conducting field trials to determine if a ground cover used in peach orchards inhibits reproduction of ring nematodes, a contributing cause of peach tree short life. This disease causes the premature death of peach trees. Of the $500,000 included in this amendment, $162,000 would be used to continue this research. The last program this money would be used for is the pest control alternatives research project. Currently, Clemson University is working to develop innovative pest control techniques which help reduce environmental concerns and increase returns to farmers. For this research program, $106,000 is requested. The consumer is asking for safer food production methods. Further, our farmers need research assistance to help reduce pesticide usage on fruits and vegetables and increase the marketing potential of our crops. These research projects will help find solutions to these problems, thus aiding farmers as well as consumers.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I just want to say this again. This is not an authorization bill. This is an appropriations bill. This very item is in conference now between the Senate and the House, because they did not agree with this. I want to assure the Senator that his point will be carefully considered and given every consideration in that conference. I will see, myself, that it gets careful consideration. The House and the Senate differ. They can arrive at a conclusion as to what decisions should be made. But to bring it up on the floor on another bill, an appropriations bill, is really not appropriate. I assure the Senator again that we will give it careful consideration when we have a conference. And the conference will begin in a few days. In fact, the chairman of the House committee and I have talked today about starting this conference right away. We expect to meet tomorrow to begin this conference.