J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to the consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 192, the adjournment resolution, which was just received from the House; further, that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, there is no question that the new rules of the World Trade Organization, especially the new dispute settlement regime, can create a situation of unprecedented opportunity. It also creates a situation of potential harm to American interests if we do not enact responsibilities by Congress on this matter. Americans have been generally suspicious of the GATT Agreement and the corresponding powers given to the World Trade Organization. Many Americans feel our country might be giving up far more than we are getting under this agreement. Most importantly, what we appear to be giving up is some of our sovereignty, some of our ability to decide for ourselves, and control over the laws and practices which govern us. The biggest potential threat to our sovereignty is the new dispute settlement process. If we are to be comfortable with the international dispute settlement process, above all else, it must be completely impartial. If the United States does not perceive impartiality and if the WTO oversteps its authority, then our country must be prepared to respond. That is what this amendment calls for. The Dispute Settlement Review Commission will help us respond. The Commission will review every adverse decision issued by the WTO. Federal appellate court judges, which this amendment proposes as Commission members, are especially qualified to review these decisions, because the questions will be complex international legal issues of whether the WTO as an international tribunal acted within its authority, abused that authority or acted arbitrarily or capriciously. I believe establishing this review commission will enhance the credibility of the WTO. It will be a powerful signal to WTO panelists that their work must be absolutely impartial. And, a reminder of their obligation to observe the bounds in negotiated trade agreements. And perhaps, most importantly, it will demonstrate that the U.S. Congress takes a strong and long-term interest in the dispute settlement process and its proper functioning. Confidence in the WTO process was not created merely by signing a trade agreement. Confidence must be built up over a long time. I believe the President has already expressed support for this legislation in its earlier form as a bill. This is not a partisan measure. It gives Congress some authority and some responsibility required in international trade. We know the American people are concerned about job loss, about exporting jobs, and about international organizations making decisions that might affect their jobs. In this light, the Congress should have some comment on the WTO's activities, and if necessary, authority to initiate withdrawal from participation if U.S. interests are abused. It would also send a strong enough signal that some of our unfair competitors in foreign countries understand that we are serious about this. We are concerned about American jobs, fairness in international trade, and the accountability of Congress in these matters. Amendment No. 4370, Withdrawn

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 27, 1996, at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing on ``Church Burnings.''

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Thursday, June 27 at 10 a.m. for a hearing on ``Improving Management and Organization in Federal Natural Resources and Environmental Functions.''

Mr. THURMOND

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

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Iowa and Massachusetts. I appreciate their efforts to craft an amendment that would provide a number of actions that our allies could take to increase their contributions to defense burdensharing. I agree that the United States pays an unfair share of the common defense burden and our allies should do more. This amendment would provide the United States with a basis by which to achieve agreements with our allies to increase their share of costs for defense. Let me emphasize that U.S. forces are deployed overseas to advance U.S. security interests. Although we seek common efforts with our allies to secure peace and promote U.S. interests abroad, we do not always necessarily agree on how those interests are to be advanced. As a result, I am not comfortable with the notion that one action an ally could take to increase its cost share would be to increase its peacekeeping or humanitarian activities--that would be considered of equal value to an ally increasing its participation in coalition operations or increasing its defense budget. Would Congress be satisfied if an ally agreed to increase its contributions to foreign assistance, and at the same time, reduce its defense expenditures? This would be counter to our efforts to get our allies to contribute more for global and regional security. Our objective should be to get our allies to agree to increase their efforts in all areas. With those remarks, I recommend that my colleagues adopt the amendment.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor and in support of the second degree amendment offered by Senator Hatch. The underlying Pryor first degree amendment concerns the complex interrelationship among the GATT Treaty, the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and the Patent Code. We considered this very issue last December on the Senate floor when Senator Pryor attempted to have this matter attached to the bill to ban partial-birth abortions. The Senate voted at that time to have the Judiciary Committee--that is the Committee with proper jurisdiction--to consider this important issue. The Judiciary Committee held a comprehensive hearing on this matter on February 27 of this year and Senator Pryor testified at that time. Mr. President, following the hearing in the Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member, the committee amended a proposal similar to Senator Pryor's amendment with a bipartisan compromise. The Judiciary Committee approved the compromise. This bill will be available for Senate floor consideration in due course. It would be most appropriate to consider Senator Pryor's amendment at that time. The Department of Defense authorization bill is not the proper vehicle on which to debate the Pryor amendment. Unfortunately, we are now having to debate this contentious intellectual property issue and I am compelled to support the second degree amendment offered by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch. The second-degree amendment reflects the bipartisan compromise agreed upon by the Judiciary Committee. Senator Hatch has spoken on the practical effect of this amendment which he drafted with others when this matter was before his Committee. Mr. President, as I noted earlier, this is a very difficult and complex issue which addresses how certain transition rules contained in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act apply to the pioneer pharmaceutical patents which have been extended by the act. The overall approach to this issue is to find an appropriate balance to encourage research and development of breakthrough innovator drugs while making low cost generic equivalents available to the public. The Judiciary Committee approved one approach which many believe reaches the goal of encouraging research and development but also expediting their generic equivalents to the marketplace. It would be my preference to debate the Pryor amendment when the full Senate turns to consideration of the bill recently approved by the Judiciary Committee. That would seem to me to be the appropriate time to consider the Pryor amendment. Yet, here we are on the Defense bill debating the Pryor amendment in a compressed manner that does not avail itself to full discussion. I urge my colleagues to support the second- degree amendment which is essentially the compromise language already approved by the Judiciary Committee. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I commend the Members of the Senate and thank them for the progress that we have made today.

Mr. THURMOND. Again, I thank the Members of the Senate for the progress we have made today. If we can just avoid amendments that are not related to defense, we can finish this bill by tomorrow night. If we work hard, stay on the job, be here and take up the amendments--I am anxious for us to get through this bill tomorrow night if possible. The majority leader wants this bill finished by tomorrow night. So I ask for the cooperation of all the Senators. Let us work together and get through this bill and not have to be here over the weekend. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND. That is correct.

Mr. THURMOND. I can assure my colleague that I will work with him to urge the Air Force to consider identifying sufficient funds through reprogramming to meet the planning and design requirements for the three projects you have identified at Vance Air Force Base. I would also urge the Department of the Air Force to reexamine these projects for inclusion in the 1997-2001 FYDP and subsequently the fiscal year 1998 budget request. I am fully aware of the unique nature of Vance Air Force Base operations and applaud their continued efforts in achieving taxpayer savings through efficient training of our Nation's future aviators. quadrennial defense review

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, as an Army ROTC Program graduate and one who believes the program is vital to the national security of our Nation, I was disappointed to learn that the Army announced on May 20, 1996, that it will terminate the program at 31 universities and colleges throughout the Nation, including two in South Carolina. I expect that many of my Senate colleagues have a strong affiliation for the ROTC Program and are prepared to speak to the merits of the program. I believe that many would echo the comments of Dr. Lee Vickers, the president of Francis Marion University who described the need for the ROTC Program as follows: Service to one's community and to the Nation as one of the constituent values of the United States and one that is being heard more and more frequently throughout the higher education community these days. What more vital service can there be than that discipline, skills, and service learned by young men and young women fortunate enough to experience the leadership training of the ROTC Program? No one can easily deny the importance and the value of the present and future citizen-soldiers leaders that the ROTC Program has produced and continues to produce. Mr. President, it troubles me that the Army terminated programs, not only at Francis Marion University, but also at Presbyterian College, and its two satellite programs at Lander University and at New Berry College. According to U.S. News and World Report Presbyterian College ranked second among 117 regional liberal arts colleges in the South. A key contributor to that reputation has been the ROTC Program which was started in 1919 with the activation of the Scottish Highlander Battalion. For 77 years, ROTC has been a respected and integral part of campus life at Presbyterian College, sending graduates to every major military campaign since World War I. To date, Presbyterian College has graduated 14 general officers and one Medal of Honor recipient and currently more than 100 Presbyterian College graduates serve in uniform. Mr. President, when I asked the Army to tell me why these programs were being terminated, their answer was the requirements for commissioned officers has decreased and therefore the number of ROTC programs must be reduced. Although that answer may be rationale, the Army could not provide me with the criteria for selecting the ROTC programs to be terminated. My amendment would require the Army to provide a report detailing the selection criteria and other information to justify the closure of the 31 ROTC units in 20 States. It would further require the Army to wait 180 days after submitting the report before initiating any action to reorganize the ROTC Program. Mr. President, this is a reasonable amendment in view of the Army's action to terminate such an important program--a program that not only supports the security of our Nation but also impacts the lives of thousands of America's future leaders. I ask my Senate colleagues to show their support for the ROTC Program and adopt this amendment.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the Senators from Georgia, New Mexico, and Indiana, to authorize the establishment of an emergency assistance program to train and equip State and local authorities to respond to domestic terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction. The amendment would also expand authorities for the DOD and DOE cooperative threat reduction programs, as well as increase the funding for these programs. I have grave concerns about increasing the funding for DOD and DOE's cooperative threat reduction programs, as well as expanding the scope of the programs in DOD and DOE. Based on my review of the amendment and the new activities authorized by this amendment, DOD and DOE will require significant funding authority in the outyears to complete these programs. For example, how much money are we talking about in the defense bill to complete the program to replace the reactor cores at Tomsk 7 and Krasnoyarsk 26? How much money will it take to convert, or eliminate, the chemical and biological facilities in all the independent states of the former Soviet Union? We have not received any information from DOD, DOE, or the National Security Council on the budgetary impact of the increases for these two programs, or whether funds will be included in the future years defense plan for this program, as well as DOE plan. I would point out that none of the funds necessary for the increases in this amendment have been appropriated. Mr. President, I believe the efforts of the sponsors of this amendment are laudable. I do not question whether its appropriate, or not, to conduct these programs. I question whether its appropriate for the funds to come out of the defense budget for these foreign assistance programs. I would also point out that DOE has not even spent the funds authorized for it currently in the materials, protection, control and accountability account. The same is true for funds in DOD's program. Although DOD has done a better job at proposing to obligate funds. Clearly, with the recent terrorist events at the World Trade Center, in Oklahoma City, and in the Tokyo subway, we need to provide assistance to our State and local authorities to prepare them to provide emergency assistance, in the event a domestic terrorist WMD incident occurs. I think that we should provide more in the way of establishing this particular program, and providing a regional NBC emergency stockpile. I want to commend the senior Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner, for the work that he has done throughout the years to ensure that DOD, DOE and the intelligence community are conducting activities to prevent or combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. I also want to commend him for his work in authoring the provisions in the last two defense bills that provided the authority for DOD to provide emergency assistance to State and local authorities in the event of a domestic terrorist WMD incident. I want to work with my colleagues, however, I want to emphasize my concerns about increasing funds in the DOD and DOE budget for cooperative threat reduction activities, for which there are no appropriations. Lastly, I would ask, is it wise for the United States to provide this type of assistance to Russia, while it continues to build SS-25's; continues to transfer nuclear technology and knowledge to Iran and China? Mr. President, in closing, I want to re-emphasize my support for the efforts of the sponsors to provide assistance to State and local authorities to respond to domestic terrorist use of WMD. I hope that we can increase the funding for this assistance in the conference. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, last week the Senator from Arizona proposed an amendment that would authorize the President to conduct underground nuclear weapons tests after October 1, 1996, if the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty has not been ratified by the United States. I want to emphasize once again, this amendment does not promote nuclear weapons testing. The amendment does not advocate opposition to concluding a comprehensive test ban. In order to conduct an underground nuclear test, the President would have to submit a report to the Congress detailing justification for the test and the Congress could take actions to stop any test. Mr. President, at some future date, if the President were to determine sometime that he needed to conduct an underground nuclear test for reason of safety and reliability of the stockpile and withdrew from a comprehensive test ban treaty, he would not be able to conduct a test. I do not believe we should wait for a situation of that nature to arise and then try to pass legislation in the Congress. Mr. President, I voted against the Exon-Hatfield-Mitchell legislation in August 1992. We must ensure that our aging nuclear weapons are safe and reliable. A moratorium on testing and certainly a comprehensive test ban will not guarantee the safety and reliability of our nuclear deterrent forces. Once again, I support the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Arizona and urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Wellstone amendment, which would reduce defense spending to below the budget resolution. Let me be clear, Mr. President. The amendment that has been offered is really a nullification of the Budget Committees' recommended increase to the President's budget request. I believe that the Budget Committee has acted wisely and prudently in recommending an increase to the President's inadequate request for defense. In order to buy the same level of national security in 1997 as we did in 1996, the defense budget would have to be $273 billion. The President's request is $18.6 billion below this. The Budget resolution proposes to increase the budget for defense by $11.2 billion; therefore, we are still $7.4 billion lower than the fiscal year 1996 level of funding in real terms. Does the Senator from Minnesota believe that our Armed Forces will be asked to do less in fiscal year 1997 than they did in fiscal year 1996? The question we should be asking, therefore, is not whether we should be reducing the defense budget even further. Rather the question should be: What additional risks are we taking by not increasing the defense budget to the $273 billion necessary to maintain the fiscal year 1996 level of military capability? Our Nation's top military leaders answer that question. General Shalikashvili, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, says he is ``very concerned that our procurement accounts are not where they ought to be.'' General Reimer, Army Chief of Staff, says that ``further deferral of modernization will incur significant risk to future readiness.'' Admiral Boorda, former Chief of Naval Operations, said: ``If we do not modernize, we ultimately place future readiness at risk.'' General Fogleman, Air Force Chief of Staff, says that ``Unless we recapitalize, we are not going to be ready to meet the threats of the future.'' And General Krulak, Marine Corps Commandant, says that: ``The Marine Corps * * * cannot absorb further reductions without sacrificing critical core capabilities.'' Even Secretary of Defense Perry admits that without an immediate increase in modernization--of which procurement is the major part--``we will start to have a real problem.'' Mr. President, when our top civilian and military leaders use terms such as ``very concerned,'' ``significant risk,'' ``critical'' and ``real problem'' in open testimony, one can only imagine what their private assessments would be. Our defense needs are underfunded, from both a historical and operational point of view. We are at the lowest level of defense spending since 1950. Procurement has been reduced by 70 percent since 1985, and by more than 40 percent under the Clinton administration. Programs to support our service men and women's quality of life are inadequate. Our ability to protect our soldiers from ballistic missile attacks suffers from lack of funding and commitment. Our military research and development is anemic. If anything, we should be considering amendments which provide floors--not ceilings--on defense funding. I realize that our great Nation has numerous domestic and international obligations. But none--I repeat, none--of these obligations rises to the level of our responsibility to provide for the common defense. Protection of our Nation's citizens is the Federal Government's first order of business. Without meeting this paramount obligation, the basic guarantees of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can easily become empty promises. Defense spending is now at its lowest level in the second half of this century. This half century has been the era of American superpower status. Our superpower status is not something we can maintain cheaply. We won the cold war through our steadfastness and robust military capabilities. Yet, we are asked by the administration and supporters of this amendment to continue undermining our military capabilities. I hope the Members of the Senate will agree with me that we cannot afford for our Nation to be less vigilant, less capable, and less ready. I strongly urge the Senate to vote against the Wellstone amendment.

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

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I want to commend the able Senator from New Mexico for his timely and excellent remarks on this subject. Mr. President, I now yield to the able Senator from Idaho such time as he may require.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I now yield to the able Senator from New Mexico 10 minutes.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am pleased and proud to be a cosponsor of an amendment originally sponsored by my friends Senator Faircloth of North Carolina, and Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts, that addresses the disturbing crime of church burnings. It has become increasingly apparent that there has been a disturbing trend occurring throughout the United States over the past 18 months, the willful and malicious destruction of churches by arson. There is something particularly hateful in the crime of arson, for it is a crime that is usually motivated by factors other than personal gain. It takes an individual who possesses either tremendous rage, or tremendous mental and personal problems, to set someone's property on fire for the mere purpose of watching it burn to the ground. When the target of such an individual's attack is the holy land of a place of worship, the crime becomes all the more sick, unsettling, senseless, and vile. The amendment I have cosponsored seeks to draw a tough line against those who commit acts of arson against churches in our Nation. It establishes tough Federal penalties for those who destroy churches through fire, and it appropriates money--from existing funds--to pay for additional Federal arson investigators. Without question, this amendment will send a clear signal to those who are contemplating fire attacks against a church that there will be severe consequences to their actions, and that the people of the United States will not tolerate such hateful acts of violence against our citizens and our places of worship.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader, may proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 453, H.R. 3525, relating to damage to religious property, and that time on the bill be limited to the following: Senator Lott, 10 minutes; Senator Daschle, 10 minutes; Senator Faircloth, 10 minutes; Senator Kennedy, 10 minutes. Further, that the bill be limited to one amendment to be offered by Senators Faircloth, Kennedy and Hatch. Further, no other amendments be in order, and that immediately following the disposition of that amendment and the expiration or yielding back of the time, the bill be read a third time and the Senate then immediately proceed to a vote on passage of H.R. 3525 as amended, if amended.

Mr. THURMOND

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

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, on behalf of all Americans I wish to express my deepest condolences to the families and loved ones of our service-members involved in yesterday's tragic terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia. While the situation is still developing, we know that 19 U.S. service personnel were killed, 80 are hospitalized, of which 60 are in critical condition. Our servicemembers in Saudi Arabia are stationed there to keep a steady and keen vigilance against the very threat to peace to which they were victims. Most of these U.S. servicemembers are performing daily missions and maintaining a deterrence against longstanding and well-known threats in the Persian Gulf. This unfortunate act of cowardly terrorism is against all who have an interest in peace. Our British, French, and Saudi allies apparently were also targets of this senseless act. The Senate is now deliberating on important legislation which affects the brave American servicemembers in Saudi Arabia, and all our forces world-wide. In doing this very important business, we should be mindful of what happened in Saudi Arabia last night. Last night's tragedy is another reminder that the absence of war does not mean that the world is at peace. Our soldiers, sailors, and airmen stand at the ready under the constant threat of violence. This is the world we live in today, in which the United States must continue to show leadership and determination. Our job in the Senate now is to be unexceptionally serious about the Defense authorization bill which is now under consideration. The American people, our Government, and the U.S. Senate are duty-bound to provide the very best for those in our Armed Forces who knowingly stand in harm's way for us. We can not fall short in supporting our men and women in uniform and their families, insuring the best possible benefits, and providing the best equipment for the dangerous missions in a still very dangerous world. Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.