J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

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

Mr. THURMOND

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

Mr. THURMOND

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

Mr. THURMOND

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

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the service and career of Mr. Robert Boyer, a member of the senior executive service, upon his retirement after 33 years of honorable and distinguished service. Throughout his career, he has epitomized the Navy core values of honor, courage, and commitment and has displayed an exceptional ability to advance the Navy's facilities requirements within the Department of Defense and the Congress. I commend him for a superb career of service to the Navy, our great Nation, and my home state of South Carolina. Mr. Boyer received the 2000 Presidential Rank of Meritorious Executive for sustained superior performance, leadership and management. He has a distinguished reputation as one of the government's leaders in strategic acquisition, business innovations, and contract initiatives. As the lead senior civilian with the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Mr. Boyer is a visionary, directly responsible for the implementation of new acquisition strategies and innovative operations and organization changes that serve Navy operating forces, senior leaders of industry, and other customers worldwide. As the Executive Director of Acquisition during the past three years, Mr. Boyer established a creative and ground-breaking an acquisition program copied both within and outside the federal government. The global scope of his responsibilities and the depth, breadth and sheer quantity of contractual actions under Mr. Boyer's purview are staggering. While Mr. Boyer continues to champion innovation and initiative within the entire Command, he continually exceeds the execution and performance goals of his Acquisition program. His loyalty and integrity are unequaled, as is the respect that he has earned from his workforce. His combination of superior talent, leadership acumen and genuine love of his work make him a gifted executive. Mr. Boyer's acquisition innovations have changed construction and service contracting ashore and set new standards within the Department of Defense for programs such as the Public-Private-Venture for the Family Housing and Utility product lines. He has made dramatic operational improvements, realigning scarce resources to acquire the best possible value for the Navy. We widely acclaim his innovative approaches within the Navy and most recently, focused senior leaders on his acquisition innovations. From December 1991 to May 1996, Mr. Boyer was the Senior Procurement Executive for the Federal Management Agency. In this capacity he directed a nationwide contract, grant, and cooperative agreement program in support of the Agency's all hazard mission. His duties included direct support to the multibillion dollar state and local municipality efforts to improve their disaster mitigation programs, response, and recovery efforts. From 1971 to 1991, Mr. Boyer worked in various acquisition positions within the Department of Navy. Mr. Boyer served as a U.S. Army Infantry Officer from 1968 to 1970. Mr. Boyer was born in Annandale, Virginia, but adopted South Carolina as his home while attending the Citadel where he earned his Masters in Business Administration. He is married to the former Julie Mandell. He and Julie have a son, Robby, and a daughter, Tracy. Madam President, I wish him and his family the best in his well- deserved retirement.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a fine individual and distinguished colleague upon his retirement. At the close of the 106th Congress, Senator Frank Lautenberg will step down from his position as a United States Senator after 18 years of dutiful service to the people of New Jersey and the citizens of the United States of America. Senator Lautenberg has truly lived the American Dream. The son of immigrants, Senator Lautenberg, was born in the hard working town of Paterson, New Jersey in 1924. During his childhood his family moved some twelve times in search of employment, and his father spent a majority of his time working in the Paterson silk mills. After his high school graduation, Senator Lautenberg answered his country's call to duty when he enlisted and served in the Army Signal Corps in Europe during World War II. Following his military service, he enrolled in Columbia University on the G.I. Bill, and graduated with a degree in economics in 1949. Senator Lautenberg then began a very successful business career. He and two of his childhood friends founded Automatic Data Processing (ADP). ADP, a payroll services company, developed into one of the largest computer service companies in the world. Frank Lautenberg worked very hard to achieve success in the business world. Many individuals would have simply stepped away to a more relaxing and slow paced life, but not Senator Lautenberg. Throughout his tenure, Frank Lautenberg has exhibited the characteristics of patriotism, hard work, and service to others that define great Americans. In 1982, he decided to begin a new career in public service, and for the past 18 years he has represented the people of New Jersey in the United States Senate. Senator Lautenberg wanted to give back to the state and Nation that gave him the opportunity to rise to great heights, and he has worked diligently to make America a better country for her citizens and future generations. It has been a pleasure working alongside Senator Lautenberg, especially on such issues as reducing alcohol abuse. We shall miss him in the Senate chamber, and I wish Senator Frank Lautenberg and his entire family health, happiness, and continued success.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the selfless and noteworthy service of our esteemed colleague from Nevada, Senator Richard Bryan. At the close of the 106th Congress, Senator Bryan will retire from public service, and will end the final chapter in a most glorious and dedicated career as a servant of the people. Even at an early age, Richard Bryan displayed the leadership, sense of caring, and charisma that make for a successful public servant. Throughout his education he served as the president of many of his classes, including as the student body president his senior year at the University of Nevada-Reno. After graduating, Senator Bryan was commissioned a Second Lieutenant in the United States Army and served his country on active duty from 1959 to 1960. He then entered the University of California, Hastings College of Law, and graduated with honors in 1963. Senator Bryan returned home to Nevada and began a career in public service that would, to the benefit of the citizens of Nevada, span more than three decades. From 1964 to 1978, he served as a Deputy District Attorney, a Public Defender, a State Assemblyman, and a State Senator. In 1978, Senator Bryan won his first state wide election when the people elected him Attorney General. Four years later Richard Bryan became Nevada's 26th Governor. After two terms as Governor, in 1988, he won election to the United States Senate. Richard Bryan is the only Nevadan to have served as the state's Attorney General, Governor, and United States Senator. Clearly, Senator Richard Bryan has always kept in mind the best interests of the people of Nevada and they have consistently asked him to represent these concerns. Additionally, over the last twelve years, Senator Bryan has become one of the Nation's leading consumer advocates. His deep concern for the consumer was evident by his successful campaign to require the installation of passenger side air bags in all cars sold in the United States. Many lives have been saved because of Senator Bryan's promotion of this legislation. It has been a pleasure getting to know Senator Richard Bryan these past twelve years, and I wish he, and his fine wife Bonnie, the best of luck in the future. I know they will enjoy all the benefits of retirement, especially the opportunity to spend more time with their family.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, as we draw the 106th Congress to a close, I wish only to take a moment to express my appreciation to Senator Stevens and others who concluded the negotiations on this final appropriations bill. They have worked under difficult circumstances, and I commend them for their accomplishment. I particularly acknowledge the effort of the Senator Stevens. He is an outstanding chairman. He has devoted months of effort to this bill at great personal sacrifice. He is extremely capable and is always courteous and I express my personal thanks to him for his good work. I am particularly gratified that the Appropriations Committee found a way to fund a leadership development program for the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. I have a long held interest in and concern for the young people of our Nation. The funding contained in this bill for a National Training Center will assist this worldwide organization in its mission of serving youth. The Center will offer a full array of programs, training, and research for participants from across the entire Nation. As a result, significant progress will be make toward the goals of promoting citizenship, leadership, and character development; the prevention of drug and alcohol abuse; and similar initiatives. On behalf of the youth of this Nation, I again express my appreciation for the Congress supporting this measure.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my colleague from the State of Washington, Senator Slade Gorton. During the course of working with Slade over the past several years, I have come to know a dedicated, intelligent individual who is recognized throughout Congress as a work horse. He is a life-long public servant who began his political career in the Washington state legislature, where he was elected by his Republican peers to the position of State House Majority Leader. After his tenure in the state house, he continued to serve the fine people of Washington as Attorney General. While serving in this position he argued fourteen cases before the Supreme Court, winning much acclaim for his proficiency as a lawyer. We come from opposite coasts, yet there are many common ideological threads we share. I respect Slade's commitment to fighting for the blue collar worker--the salt-of-the-earth, hard working individuals who I am also pleased to represent--along with his strong support for the law enforcement community and for states' rights. More importantly, I admire Slade's determination, a trait which enabled him to serve three terms in the United States Senate. Senator Slade Gorton is a straightforward individual whose candor will be greatly missed, and I feel that I can speak for all of my colleagues when I express my gratitude for his countless contributions to the Senate. I wish him and his wife Sally health, happiness, and success in the years to come.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today in remembrance of those who relinquished their lives at the Japanese attack of Pearl Harbor. As President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said at the time, December 7, 1941, will remain ``a date which will live in infamy,'' for it was on this date that the Japanese forces attacked our unsuspecting Nation. The first Japanese assault struck the United States naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on the island of Oahu, at 7:55 a.m. The base was just awakening early Sunday morning when the sound of Japanese torpedo planes could be heard. The American armed forces in the Pacific were caught completely off guard. When a war warning was issued two weeks prior, Hawaii was not mentioned as a possible target. At the time, American authorities thought that the Philippines or Malaysia would be a possible area of attack, not the island of Hawaii. Therefore, Pearl Harbor was not prepared for the onslaught of terror that occurred that devastating morning. The Japanese attack consisted of 363 planes that came in two waves with the second only 45 minutes after the first. The United States had concentrated almost its entire fleet of 94 vessels, including 8 battleships, at Pearl Harbor, and this proximity made an easy target for the Japanese. Additionally, to prevent against saboteurs, the Army's planes at Oahu were alined wing tip to wing tip on airfields. Therefore, the Japanese were able to easily diminish the threat of any American defense. Before noon, when the Japanese attack concluded, 2,403 American servicemen and civilians were killed and an additional 1,178 were wounded. December 7, 1941, is the day our land, our people, and our spirit were brutally attacked. However, the Japanese forces failed to defeat the patriotism of the American people and our undying belief in our Nation. We were able to rally around one another with the knowledge and the confidence that America would prevail, and the great losses we suffered at Pearl Harbor would not be in vain. As a veteran of World War II, and a proud American, I would like to recognize the patriotism, the bravery, and the extreme sacrifices of those who were at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, including our own Senator Dan Inouye. These fine men and women are true American heroes, and our country forever owes them a great debt of gratitude.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate is considering H.R. 3048, the Presidential Threat Protection Act. This is important legislation that will benefit both the Secret Service and the Marshals Service, and I hope it becomes law without further delay. I have fought this entire year to pass legislation that will help the Marshals Service place an increased focus on fighting dangerous fugitives. It has been estimated that 50 percent of the crime in America is caused by 5 percent of the offenders. It is these hard-core, repeat criminals, many of whom are fugitives, that law enforcement must address today. As we discussed at a hearing that I chaired earlier this year before the Judiciary Criminal Justice Oversight Subcommittee on this matter, the number of dangerous fugitives is rising, even as crime rates continue to decline. There are over 525,000 felony or other serious Federal and State fugitives listed in the database of the National Crime Information Center. This number has doubled just since 1987. The act we are considering today helps make these criminals a top priority by requiring the Attorney General to establish permanent fugitive apprehension task forces to be run by the Marshals Service. The task forces will be a combined effort of Federal and State law enforcement agencies, each bringing their own expertise to this critical task. These task forces will operate across district lines in the areas of the country where the problem is most acute. They will be operated by the Marshals Service as a national effort, rather than through particular districts, so that other activities cannot interfere in these efforts to apprehend fugitives. Also, the task forces should not duplicate existing fugitive work of the Marshals Service or other Federal and State law enforcement agencies. Moreover, as was discussed during our hearing on this matter, they should work closely with other government agencies. Everyone who is involved in or can contribute to fugitive apprehension must work together to make these specialized fugitive initiatives efficient and effective. H.R. 3048 provides important, limited administrative subpoena authority for the Secret Service to track down those who threaten the President. I worked hard this year to try to create similar administrative subpoena authority for the Department of Justice to better enable the Marshals Service and others to locate fugitives. In the Senate, we passed S. 2516, the Fugitive Apprehension Act, which I sponsored, as a free-standing bill to accomplish this task. Later, in the Senate, we also passed a more limited version of S. 2516 as part of H.R. 3048. I thought it was most appropriate that we expand administrative subpoena authority as part of one combined bill. Unfortunately, the House did not include the administrative subpoena authority for fugitives when passing H.R. 3048 again last week. Some claims were made about the fugitive subpoena authority late in the session that were misinformed or incorrect. We worked closely with our counterparts in the House and tried very hard to alleviate any legitimate concerns by narrowing the scope of the bill and creating even more checks on its use. However, we were not fully able to reach a consensus on this provision this year. We must continue our efforts in the next Congress. Subpoena authority has existed for years to help authorities investigate drug offenses, child abuse, and even health care fraud. After H.R. 3048 passes, the authority will also exist regarding certain threats against the President. As law enforcement continues to use the subpoena authority in these areas in a responsible, targeted manner, I hope those who have concerns about subpoena authority will come to realize that it is a critical law enforcement tool in certain circumstances. This should be especially clear when law enforcement must track down dangerous fugitives who have warrants out for their arrest and are evading justice. In closing, I am pleased that this year we have made progress in helping law enforcement address dangerous fugitives. The task forces are one part of this vital larger bill that will benefit Federal law enforcement in their tireless efforts to fight crime.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his kind remarks. He has done a great job. I don't know of anyone who has done better. We are proud of him. I want him to know it. We are proud of the Senate and all it has accomplished, and we expect to do even more as the days go by.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to thank the able Senator from West Virginia for his kind remarks. He is a man of character, a man of ability, a man of dedication, a man for whom all of us have high respect. He has done a fine job here in the Senate. Although we are in different parties, we have so much in common. I have enjoyed being here with him, and I thank him for his great service to his State and to our Nation. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Savannah River Site, located in my hometown of Aiken, South Carolina, on it's fiftieth anniversary. On November 28, 1950, President Truman announced the construction of the Savannah River Site. In celebration of this important milestone, I would like to insert the following essay recounting the rich history of this American institution into the Congressional Record. I would also like to extend my appreciation to Mr. James M. Gaver, the Director of the Office of External Affairs at the Savannah River Operations Office and the unofficial ``Savannah River Site historian'' for writing the following composition. I ask unanimous consent that his essay be inserted into the Record. Without objection the essay was ordered printed in the Record. Essay by Mr. James M. Gaver For the Central Savannah River Area (CSRA), the Cold War created greater change than the Civil War, an unlikely storyline in the deep South. Between 1950 and 1955 a transformation occurred with breathtaking speed that eradicated small railroad towns, farms, and mill villages typical of mid twentieth-century Southern life on the Savannah. These familiar agrarian settings were replaced with a technological complex built and operated by men and women who came from all parts of the country. International events and science had come to South Carolina and Georgia in the form of the Savannah River Plant. This industrial complex of nine manufacturing and process areas integrated into one plant was needed to produce plutonium and tritium for the nation's defense. The participants in the making of the Savannah River Plant--scientists, engineers, construction workers, local politicians, community members, and uprooted residents--were a study in diversity. Yet each, driven by patriotism, contributed to the success of the project. The production line and laboratory were the chosen theaters of war for the scores of scientists, industrial managers, engineers, and support personnel of all descriptions. With families in tow, they became atomic age homesteaders within the Savannah River Valley. Environmental researchers joined their ranks, charting physical change within the plant area and helping give birth to the discipline of ecology. Construction workers and craftsmen came in droves to participate in an industrial and engineering ``event'' that ranked with the construction of the Panama Canal. Industrial boosters and state and local politicians crowed at the site selection that rooted atomic energy development in the CSRA. For them, the country's need marvelously coincided with the economic need of their constituencies. The final profile belongs to the 6,000 individuals or 1,500 families relocated from the 315 square mile area selected for the plant in Aiken, Barnwell, and Allendale counties, South Carolina. Their contribution was remarkable, changing the course of their family's histories. With Japan's surrender on August 14, 1945, Americans began to celebrate the end of the war and make plans for the future. Their euphoria was shortlived. It was swiftly replaced by images of an Iron Curtain, Soviet domination and terror, mushroom clouds, fears of radiation, and the potential for mass destruction. The Cold War began in Europe over the remains of Nazi Germany as the Allies began planning for postwar Europe. Germany was divided into two nations and the U.S. Congress appropriated billions of dollars to our Allies in Western Europe for defense and economic aid. Between 1945 and 1947, mistrust between the United States and Soviet Russia hardened into belief systems. The Truman Doctrine presented to Congress on March 12, 1947, sketched out the political situation. Two worlds were emerging, one in which people lived in freedom, while the second was bent on coercion, terror, and oppression. Global conflict resulted as opposing economic and social systems were pitted against one another on a technological battlefield. Furthermore, continued advancement within the atomic bomb program that had just ended one war was considered critical to wage the next. After a job well done, some Manhattan Project scientists and engineers returned to the private sector. Du Pont, the main contractor for Hanford, also retired from the field of atomic energy. The Manhattan Project continued with a core group of atomic bomb project veterans under the direction of the indomitable General Leslie Groves. The nation's third and fourth plutonium bombs, Shot Able and Shot Baker, were tested at Bikini Atoll in the Pacific in July 1946. These tests gave an invited audience of military officers, congressmen, journalists, and scientists firsthand knowledge of the power of the bombs. The high profile of the tests ensured that atomic weapons research and development remained in the forefront of the nation's defense strategy during this uneasy peacetime. Responsibility for America's atomic arsenal had been transferred from the military to the civilian Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) established by the Atomic Energy Act of 1946. The commission was composed of a five-member board that served full-time, assisted by scientific and military advisory committees. Headed by TVA veteran David Lilienthal, the AEC was in the process of recasting the nation's atomic energy program when the Soviets exploded their first atomic weapon on August 27, 1949. On September 23, 1949, President Truman announced the end of the U.S. monopoly in atomic bombs. The Soviet test, named Joe I by the American press, shocked the American public, its leaders, scientists, and intelligence agencies. The Commission and its advisors began a new evaluation of their proposed program energized by ``the old spirit of emergency.'' The need for the thermonuclear bomb provoked serious debate within a small circle of individuals that included the members of the AEC's General Advisory Committee, the AEC commissioners and staff, the Senate and House Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Defense Department officials, and a group of concerned scientists. Would an H-bomb improve our retaliatory strength enough to justify the diversion of materials from the A-bomb program? Would large bombs such as the ``Super'' merely give the illusion of security? No consensus was reached. Truman then created a subcommittee of the National Security Council. Secretary of State Dean Acheson, Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson, and AEC Chairman David Lilienthal were appointed to provide direction. President Truman received the sub-committee's recommendation that the United States should proceed with an all-out nuclear effort. He signed this recommendation to develop all forms of atomic weapons, including the ``Super,'' on January 31, 1950. This recommendation would lead to the announcement of the Savannah River Plant by the close of the year. Preliminary designs for the new hydrogen bomb required quantities of tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, to be fused with deuterium, another isotope of hydrogen, for energy release. While Hanford's production reactors were already producing tritium, weapon design in the early 1950s suggested a dramatic increase in the need for tritium. To provide tritium for design and testing purposes for the short term, Hanford's reactors would be used. For long term production, the AEC determined that two new production reactors of significantly different design were to be built at a new location. In May 1950, the cost of the new plant was forecasted at $247,854,000 and a base of operations was established in Washington in late June to shepherd the new plant into reality. Curtis Nelson was selected as the AEC manager for the new project. Nelson was a likely candidate. A civil engineer by training with experience in managing large construction projects, he was on assignment as U.S. liaison to Canada's nuclear program at Chalk River, Ontario, when he was posted as the manager for the new project. Highly enriched uranium (HEU) fuel rods were needed to increase tritium production, but the process for making tritium was not yet fully tested. Data from Canada's NRX heavy-water reactor that used HEU fuel rods could provide data for the American effort and Nelson was already on hand. Cooperation with the Canadian program could be helpful in America's bid to win the arms race. Du Pont was chosen as the prime contractor for the plant. The chemical firm's work during the Manhattan Project at Oak Ridge on the X-10 complex; the design, construction, and wartime operation of the production facility at Hanford; and Du Pont's postwar role as technical advisors on various developing atomic energy projects positioned the Delaware- based firm for the job. Du Pont was released from its Hanford assignment in 1946 at its own request, turning over operation of the plant to General Electric. Four years later, the firm, then headed by atomic energy pioneer Crawford Greenewalt, was asked by the White House and the Commission to reprise its role. Du Pont's acceptance of the enormous job was announced on August 2, 1950. The Du Pont firm established the Atomic Energy Division (AED) within its Explosives Department and began putting together a team for the new project and division. Planning began immediately with site selection and reactor design uppermost in mind. Du Pont worked closely with the AEC, helping to mold the plant it would operate. When the North Korean Army drove across the 38th parallel into the Republic of Korea in June 1950, the Atomic Energy Commission decided to add three more reactors to the two already planned, adding to the complexity of the proposed plant. With legislation in place to provide a legal basis for the AEC's intended acquisition, a tract in South Carolina's Barnwell and Aiken counties was chosen out of 114 candidate sites for the new plant. The search that began in June ended on November 10th with the search committee's recommendation for the South Carolina site. Water, abundant in supply and low in mineral content, topography, the isolated character of the site, an available labor pool, and military defense all figured into the Site's selection. Reaction to the public announcement of the site selection on November 28, 1950 was jubilant in Georgia and South Carolina. Senator Edgar A. Brown and Augusta's Chamber of Commerce Secretary, Lester Moody, had been working for months to secure the new plant for the CSRA. Clark Hill Dam, Hartwell Dam, and the new H-bomb plant were evolutionary steps in the shaping of the area's industrial future. Atomic piles, known as reactors, would soon rub shoulders and share the river water with Graniteville and Augusta's textile mills. Newspaper headlines clamored that Augusta would become a metropolis, Aiken a ``fast growing city,'' and Barnwell and environs would quickly follow suit. Slicing through the clamor were the voices of those displaced by the plant. Residents of Ellenton (population 600), Dunbarton (population 231), Hawthorne, Meyers Mill, Robbins, Leigh, and farmers and tenants within the outlying areas listened sadly and carefully as AEC, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Du Pont, and local officials outlined what was ahead for them. Eighteen months were allotted for the staged evacuation of 1500 families. Ellenton residents were to be evacuated by March 1, 1952, Dunbarton residents by June 15. Land appraisers would contact owners, beginning the acquisition process. Those in construction priority areas had six weeks notice. The many families who rented or sharecropped for their livelihood were also deeply affected. In a month usually filled with warm thoughts of home and the upcoming holidays, ``the DPs,'' those displaced by the federal taking, grappled with future plans under the scrutiny of reporters who told their story to the nation. Some displaced families chose to physically move their homes out of the area, relocating in the new town of New Ellenton, Jackson, or other environs. Others moved to existing neighboring communities. The original boundaries also included the communities of Jackson and Snelling; when acquisition plans were finalized, these communities were not affected. In 1952, a corridor was added from the site to the Savannah River along Lower Three Runs Creek in Barnwell and Allendale counties. The South Atlantic Real Estate Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) conducted the acquisition program, ultimately acquiring 1,706 tracts of land, totaling 200,742 acres. Seventy four percent of the acquired properties were farms cultivated in corn, cotton, and peanuts. Small tenant farms were in the majority; the agricultural labor pool was predominantly African American. The plant area was closed to the public on December 14. Sign posted at Ellenton, South Carolina border. ``It is hard to understand why our town must be destroyed to make a bomb that will destroy someone else's town that they love as much as we love ours, but we feel that they picked not just the best spot in the U.S. but the best in the world. We love these dear hearts and gentle people, who live in our home town.'' Between January 1951 and 1955, the Atomic Energy Commission constructed a self-sufficient industrial plant that was considered the largest single construction job it had ever undertaken. Its magnitude and scope were unequaled, in a half century punctuated by immense engineering and construction projects such as the Panama Canal, Tennessee Valley Authority, and the AEC's own Manhattan Project-era plants at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and Hanford, Washington. At peak construction in September 1952, 38,582 workers labored 54 hours a week under the direction of Du Pont engineers. South Carolina (25,019) and Georgia (13,776) contributed the majority of the project's construction force; however, forty- nine states and the Panama Canal Zone were also represented in the ranks. Design flowed from Du Pont and its subcontractors drawing tables through the national laboratories and the Atomic Energy Commission. Five reactors, two chemical separations plants, a heavy water plant, a fuel and target manufacturing area, and laboratories were joined by over sixty miles of railroad, 230 miles of new roads, the state's first cloverleaf intersection, power plants, and other infrastructure. Three safety awards were earned by the project, a coup for Du Pont's Construction Field Manager Bob Mason. And an esprit de corps, shown in the project newspaper ``SRP News and Views'' and in athletics and other recreational events, was fostered by the schedule, secrecy, purpose, and magnitude of the project. Between 1950 and 1960, the Savannah River communities grew substantially as they absorbed the incoming work force. Augusta grew by 25 percent, North Augusta tripled its population, while Aiken, Williston, and Barnwell doubled in size. Jackson, a rim community, achieved town status, as did New Ellenton located to the north of the plant. The trailer cities that had housed the construction workers and their families were archaeological sites by 1960. More lasting were an estimated 5,465 homes built to accommodate operating staff and their families in the surrounding counties. The Housing and Home Finance Administration provided grants after AEC review to offset the expansion of basic community services. The affected communities experienced growing pains in all directions, as schools, roads, water and sewage systems, parks, and basic community needs were all impacted. Inside the plant fence, the Community Chest Program was chosen by the plant management as a way for workers to show their community support. Each year money was energetically collected in support of this program, and contributors would indicate which community should receive their donation. In 1952, $50,908 were contributed; a year later contributions soared to $74,015. The new atomic community already had neighborhood pride. In education, the AEC made great strides in the fields of science and technology. Under an agreement with the Southern Regional Education Board in 1956, a cooperative program began in which college students could attend classes and work at the plant alternating terms. Georgia Institute of Technology and University of Florida students were the first to sign up. Grants were also made to regional universities to fund the development of programs in atomic energy and related fields. At the high school level, science students were invited on Thomas Alva Edison's birthday to come to the plant and tour facilities to learn about the peaceful applications of atomic energy. Civic talks were given and science fairs held. Finally, membership in professional organizations abounded and local chapters of heretofore national organizations were established in the Central Savannah River Area. Massive amounts of concrete, steel, rebar, lumber, and macadam were used to create the Savannah River Plant. Construction statistics are staggering, attesting to the epic nature of the undertaking. However, the construction activity was confined to an industrial core area, leaving a large buffer zone of land untouched by industrial construction. In this zone, an equally epic undertaking mostly orchestrated by nature occurred. A ``garden'' grew up around the machine. The U.S. Forest Service, under contract with the AEC, set out about 10,000,000 pine seedlings along the plant perimeter for screening and erosion control in 1952-53, and then launched a forest management program for an additional 60,000 acres. Their efforts, combined with the retirement of thousands of acres of farmland from cultivation, the impact of intensive grading from construction, and human neglect factored into the making of a new landscape. A green space with an incredible diversity of plant and animal life grew up in its stead. Scientific knowledge concerning the environmental impact of industry, atomic or otherwise, was limited in 1950. Ecology was a developing field. The AEC, with a strong sense of stewardship, invited scientists from the Universities of Georgia and South Carolina to collect baseline data on plant and animal communities that would provide a ``before'' picture with which to measure the impact of the Plant's processes on the environment. Du Pont, already a leader in the field of industrial ecology, was responsible for bringing a team from the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia under the leadership of Dr. Ruth Patrick to the plant to perform a biological study of the Savannah River. The University of Georgia developed a program that went beyond inventory, that became the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory. Under the direction of Dr. Eugene Odum, a large-scale study of ecological succession began. Ecologists studied the dynamics of change within the environment as the impress of centuries of agriculture disappeared and natural succession occurred. Radiation ecology studies were also an early research focus. While the Cold War mission was the prime mover in the shaping of the Savannah River Plant, the stewardship of the land acquired for that purpose was also part of the compact made with the American people. Since those earliest days, the employees of the Savannah River Site have had sustained success in meeting their commitments to the nation. They have safely fulfilled their primary mission of producing plutonium and tritium for the national defense--to this day the Site has maintained a 100 percent on-time record of production and delivery of tritium to the Department of Defense. In the realm of basic science, they advanced the knowledge of particle physics with the proof of the existence of the neutrino in 1956. Their advances in nuclear materials production led to additional missions of creating radioactive isotopes for medical diagnosis and treatment; industrial and research programs; and NASA space missions, from Voyager to Cassini, now on its way to Saturn. They designed and built the largest radioactive waste vitrification facility in the world, the Defense Waste Processing Facility, where highly radioactive liquid waste is transformed into a solid glass form for safe storage and ultimate disposition. Their early concern for the environment and study of the ecological consequences of their operations led to the designation of SRS as the first National Environmental Research Park in 1972. They discovered the natural habitat of the bacterium that causes Legionnaires' Disease. The end of the Cold War brought significant change to the Savannah River Site. The national defense mission continued with the recycling and replenishment of tritium from dismantled nuclear weapons, but increased attention was brought to bear on waste management and environmental restoration activities. This new focus included adapting defense-specific technologies to peacetime applications, which benefitted greatly from the Site infrastructure and the historical expertise of the Site workforce. For example, Site expertise in handling tritium (a form of hydrogen) has yielded hydride technologies that have applications in the transportation and energy industries. Advances in robotics and environmental monitoring and cleanup technologies, such as proving the existence of deep subsurface microbes and employing them for in-situ remediation of wastes, have led to applications not just at SRS, but across the country and around the world. The Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, widely recognized as the birthplace of the modern science of ecology, has a laboratory at Chernobyl, Ukraine, where scientists share their expertise in helping the Ukrainians recover from that disaster. Today, the future of the Savannah River Site looks as bright as it did 50 years ago. In the area of stockpile stewardship, it will continue its key national defense mission as the nation's sole source for tritium using a new Tritium Extraction Facility now under construction. It will also provide a backup source for plutonium weapon components, called pits, should the nation require that increased capacity. In the area of nuclear materials stewardship, it will contribute to our nation's nonproliferation efforts to reduce the global nuclear danger. It will receive surplus weapons plutonium from other DOE sites for safe, secure storage pending disposition; some of the plutonium will be stored in one of the old reactors which previously created the plutonium. It will prepare that surplus plutonium for final disposition. One new facility will immobilize the plutonium in ceramic disks that will be encased in canisters of protective radioactive glass at the Defense Waste Processing Facility. Other new facilities, the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility and the Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, will convert the plutonium from dismantled weapons into commercial reactor fuel which will provide electrical power while it is slowly converted into non-weapons-usable spent fuel. It will also down-blend weapons-usable highly enriched uranium into a low-enrichment form usable as fuel in commercial power reactors. In the area of environmental stewardship, it will develop technologies and practices to manage wastes and clean up the environment more efficiently and cost effectively. Its longstanding support for, and from, its neighbors in the Central Savannah River Area will reinforce its commitment to success in all these endeavors.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, it is highly unfortunate that the Clinton administration is apparently trying to play politics with immigration during the final days before the Presidential election. The Congress has tried to work in good faith with the President to help immigrants who play by the rules, and have not been treated fairly by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Unfortunately, the President does not seem to be interested in a reasonable compromise. President Clinton has demanded blanket amnesty for any alien in the United States in 1986 or before. This is not limited to legal immigrants. It includes illegal aliens. It does not matter to the President whether they have tried to follow the law in getting their status adjusted during all these years, or whether they flagrantly violated the immigration laws. The President just wants to give blanket amnesty. Also, the White House does not know how many would be eligible for amnesty under their plan, but the number would clearly be in the millions. This is irresponsible policy. The National Border Patrol Council, whose members are border patrol agents, has strongly criticized the President's proposal. They said, ``In addition to punishing those who abide by our immigration laws and rewarding those who disobey them, a new amnesty would encourage innumerable others to break our laws in the future. This is not sound public policy.'' The Congress has a better way. The Legal Immigration Family Equity Act, which is part of the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations legislation, would allow aliens in the United States before 1982 to secure amnesty if they had tried to comply with the immigration laws. This would provide assistance to about 400,000 aliens who were wrongly denied relief through administrative action of the I.N.S. Moreover, the legislation would assist hundreds of thousands of applicants who are on a waiting list to be united with their families in the United States. This bill would greatly help promote family unification. As this legislation demonstrates, the Congress should help immigrants who help themselves and try to follow the rules. However, far too often, the roadblock that legal immigrants run into has nothing to do with the Congress. It is caused by the Administration, and more specifically the I.N.S. The record of the I.N.S. in helping legal immigrants during this Administration has been very poor. I have grown very frustrated in recent years trying to help citizens of my state who are trying to work through the I.N.S. and follow the law. Sometimes, when I make inquiries about an applicant's case, the I.N.S. does not even respond to my repeated requests. When I do get a response, it is often handwritten and hard to read or understand. It may even be inaccurate. Also, the I.N.S. has actually lost files about which I was inquiring. If federal elected officials receive this type of treatment, the difficulties that applicants face while trying to work with the I.N.S. alone must be many, many times worse. I have contacted the Attorney General about these chronic problems, but I have not even received the courtesy of a response. With a new Administration next year, I hope we can fundamentally reform the I.N.S. We must make it responsive to the people. In the meantime, the President should cooperate with the Congress, and promote reasonable solutions to the problems faced by legal immigrants. At the same time, he should devote his attention to addressing the fundamental problems regarding how immigrants are treated by his own administration every single day.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to bid farewell to a true American hero. Senator J. Robert Kerrey will be retiring from the United States Senate after dedicating the last twelve years to representing the fine state of Nebraska. Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have had the opportunity to serve with several distinguished patriots. However, few have displayed the commitment and ability of Senator Bob Kerrey. After graduating from the University of Nebraska at Lincoln in 1966, Bob set his aspirations high, earning a prestigious slot on one of America's most elite fighting forces, the Navy Seals. While serving this Nation in Vietnam, Bob demonstrated the valor, leadership, and selflessness deserving of the Congressional Medal of Honor. The Medal of Honor is the highest medal awarded by the United States and is reserved for those who have gone above and beyond the call of duty, at the risk of their own life, to perform a deed of personal bravery or self-sacrifice. Upon his return to the States after the war, Bob built a thriving business with unwavering determination. After proving himself an able businessman, he decided to pursue a career in public service. In 1982, he was sworn in as Governor of the Cornhusker State. During his four year tenure, he used his vast financial knowledge to turn a three percent deficit into a seven percent surplus. Bob changed roles but continued his public service, when he won a seat in the U.S. Senate in 1988. Admired by his constituents for his countless contributions to furthering education and assisting small farmers, he was re-elected in 1994. It has been a privilege to serve along side this American patriot, and I am pleased that I had the opportunity to work with him on the Armed Services Committee. I wish him and his two children, Benjamin and Lindsey, health, happiness, and success in all their future endeavors.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a man who has made countless contributions to the state of Florida and to this Nation during his tenure in the United States Senate, Senator Connie Mack. Senator Mack has decided to retire after serving two successful terms in the Senate. Prior to his entrance into public service, Connie spent 16 years as a local banker. During this time, he established himself as a civic leader in his Florida community and helped spearhead an effort to build a much needed local hospital. Recognizing that as a member of Congress he could do much more to help not only his local community, but the entire nation as well, he decided to run for a seat in the House of Representatives. While serving three terms in the House, Connie built a reputation as someone who could get things done. It was soon obvious to many familiar with this aspiring politician that his talents would best serve this nation in the United States Senate. Running on a platform of ``less taxing, less spending, less government, more freedom,'' Connie Mack was embraced by the Florida voters and was sworn in as the junior Senator for the Sunshine State in January 1989. Senator Mack was soon recognized by his colleagues as a man with a solid work ethic of uncompromising integrity. In 1996, he was chosen by his Republican colleagues as Chairman of the Republican Conference, and he retained this post for the rest of his time in office. He fought intensely for his constituents, and they repaid him in 1994 when they re-elected him with 70 percent of the vote--the first Republican in Florida to be re-elected to the United States Senate. During Connie's tenure in the Senate, he has used his extensive banking experience to frame landmark legislation which modernized our banking laws and helped prepare our financial system for the global market of the 21st century. A fierce opponent of government waste, he advocates deficit reduction and cutting congressional spending. Connie's most admirable trait is his determination to overcome tragedy. His family's battle with cancer catalyzed the young Senator to push a legislative agenda focused on eliminating this destructive disease. Senator Mack is known nationwide as an advocate for cancer research, and both he and his wife Priscilla have been honored repeatedly for their work to promote cancer awareness. He has been instrumental in obtaining medical research funding, and his perseverance paid off to the benefit of the health of this Nation. Senator Connie Mack is an individual well respected on both sides of the political aisle. His legacy is one composed of honesty and integrity, and I feel that I can speak for all of my colleagues when I express my gratitude for his countless contributions to the Senate. I wish him and his wife Priscilla health, happiness, and success in the years to come.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the finest scholars to have graced the United States Senate, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. As all of you know, our esteemed colleague from New York will soon be retiring from the Senate after 24 years. Senator Moynihan has a rich history of public service. Beginning his political career as a member of Averell Harriman's gubernatorial campaign staff in 1954, Senator Moynihan used his vast intellect to build one of the most expansive political resumes of the 20th century. To attempt to list every position ever held by my colleague would take entirely too long. However, some of the highlights of his political career include serving in the Cabinet or sub-Cabinet of Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford, serving as a U.S. Ambassador to India, and as a U.S. Representative to the United Nations. In 1976, he again represented the U.S. as President of the United Nations Security Council. It is important to note that Senator Moynihan accomplished all of this prior to his tenure in the Senate. Though anyone would be impressed with such an extensive biography, Senator Moynihan has not limited himself to the political arena. He has served in the United States Navy, taught at some of the most elite schools in the Nation, authored or edited 18 books, and has served on numerous boards and committees. An exhaustive lifestyle few could endure has resulted in Senator Moynihan's receipt of some of the most prestigious national awards, and 62 honorary degrees. The Senate will not be the same without my esteemed colleague from the Empire State, and I would like to express my gratitude for his service to this Nation. I wish him and his wife Liz health, happiness, and success in all of their future endeavors.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, in a few short hours the 106th Congress will be a part of the history of this great Nation. As we resolutely work toward the goal of adjournment, I want to take a few moments to pay tribute to Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, our former colleague and the nation's 20th Secretary of Defense. Secretary Cohen, better known as ``Bill'' to all of us, has since January 24, 1997, been at the helm of the Department of Defense and the leader of the greatest military force in the history of our great Nation. His tenure as Secretary of Defense will be marked by great advances in the quality of life for our military personnel and their families, the refocusing of the Department of Defense to the new threats of weapons of mass destruction and cyber-terrorism, and, more importantly, assuring this Nation's position as the world's only super power. Bill Cohen is a Renaissance Man of the same mold as the founders of this Nation. A forward thinker who has been an influential voice on defense and security issues since he was first elected to the House of Representatives from Maine's Second Congressional District in 1973. During his eighteen years as a United States Senator representing the State of Maine, Bill Cohen played a leading role in defense matters while a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Not only was he a key sponsor of the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act of 1986, but also the GI Bill of 1984, the Intelligence Oversight Reform Act of 1991, the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 and the Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1996. His long and distinguished service to the Nation and the State of Maine, both as a legislator and Secretary of Defense, will serve as a lasting tribute to William S. Cohen. I congratulate him on his long and distinguished career and thank him for the courtesies and friendship he extended to me during his service in the Senate and as Secretary of Defense.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a praiseworthy individual who has dedicated his life to serving the people of this Nation as an officer on the United States Capitol Police Force, Officer Oliver ``Andy'' Anders. Andy will be retiring from the Capitol Police on November 3, 2000, after 26 years of faithful service. His presence will be missed throughout the halls of Congress. Over the last three decades I have had the opportunity to get to know Andy. For many years, he greeted me at the doors of the Senate chamber where he stood sentry. I always appreciated having the opportunity to chat with this friendly native of Greer, South Carolina, and I admired the professionalism he demonstrated throughout his tenure. Too often we fail to properly thank the courageous men and women who, like Officer Anders, serve on the Capitol Police Force. These fine individuals make countless sacrifices to protect and serve both the daily visitors and the workers at the Capitol. They are on guard 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, providing a vital service so that we can walk these hollowed halls without fear. These officers have continuously displayed integrity and honor, and I commend them for their dedicated service. We are truly in their debt. At this time, I ask that my colleagues join me in wishing Officer Anders health, happiness, and success in all of his future endeavors. He has served his Nation well, and we are grateful for his assistance.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I was recently given a copy of an excerpt from a yet unpublished book written by South Carolina native and former Citadel graduate, Mr. Pat Conroy. This essay is an insightful tribute to the men and women who served their country in times of conflict, and I would like to take this opportunity to bring this exceptional essay to the attention of my colleagues. Mr. Conroy's composition recounts the experiences of a courageous man who answered his nation's call to serve in the armed forces during a time of conflict, and the intense pride he had in his country even during the most dire of circumstances as a POW. It also recounts how, through the author's interaction with this patriotic individual, Mr. Conroy arrived at the realization that duty to one's country is an obligation that comes with the privilege of being a citizen. This dramatic composition honors those who accepted their duty with courage and dignity, and I ask unanimous consent that this poignant essay be inserted into the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, it was only a little over a year ago when this nation lost one of the most inspiring, talented sculptors of the 20th century. Frederick Hart's passionate spirituality and his extraordinary ability to transform human emotions into physical elements were reflected throughout his works of art, and his tragic death has left a tremendous void. I know that I convey the thoughts of all who had the privilege of knowing Rick as I again extend my condolences to his wife, Lindy, and their two sons, Lain and Alexander. On October 6, 2000, Reverend Doctor Stephen Happel, Dean of the School of Religious Studies at Catholic University, paid tribute to Frederick Hart at a memorial service held in his honor at the Washington National Cathedral. Dr. Happel's poignant remarks are a testimony to a man who embraced the complexity of God and art, and I ask unanimous consent that his remarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Thank you very much. I appreciate your fine work as chairman. Mr. President, before I discuss the conference report on the Defense authorization bill, I want to join my colleagues in expressing my condolences to the families of the sailors killed and wounded in this morning's attack on the U.S.S. Cole. This heinous attack again demonstrates the constant peril faced by our military personnel and reinforces the need for this Nation to maintain its vigilance at all times. Mr. President, I join Chairman Warner and Senator Levin, the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, in urging my Senate colleagues to support the conference report to accompany the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. The report, which is the culmination of hundreds of hours of work by the Senate and House Armed Services Committees, is a continuation of the Congress' efforts to reverse the decline in the readiness of our armed forces. It increases the President's budget request by more than $4 billion. More important, it directs the additional resources to the critical areas of procurement, research and development, and improving the quality of life for our military personnel and their families. The chairman and ranking member have already highlighted the significant aspects of this bill. However, I do want to comment on the comprehensive health care provision for Medicare-eligible military retirees and the Energy Employees' Occupational Illness Compensation Program, both of which I consider significant aspects of this legislation. The health care provision is long overdue legislation that will ensure our military retirees and their families receive life-long health care committed to them as a condition of their service. It will significantly ease the uncertainty regarding health care and financial burden for thousands of military retirees who have dedicated their lives to the service of the Nation. The occupational illness compensation provision provides fair and just compensation to the thousands of workers who were exposed to dangerous levels of hazardous material and other toxic substances while they worked on the Nation's nuclear weapons programs. Although I understand that these benefits come at a significant financial cost, we must keep in mind our commitment to these patriots and remember the greatness of a Nation is not how much gold or wealth it accumulates, but on how it takes care of its citizens, especially those who serve in the Armed Forces. As with all conference reports, there are disappointments. I am particularly disappointed that the provision to increase the survivor benefit plan basic annuity for surviving spouses age 62 and older was dropped during the conference. The provision would have increased the survivor benefit plan annuity for these individuals from 35 percent to 45 percent over the next four years. I understand that despite the obvious merit of the legislation it was dropped during the conference because it would have cost $2.4 billion over the next 10 years. I find this ironic, since there is more than $60 billion in direct spending attributed to this conference report. Despite my disappointment regarding the survivor benefit plan provision, this is a strong defense bill that will have a positive impact on the readiness of our armed forces. It is also a fitting tribute to my friend Floyd Spence, the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, to have this bill named in his honor. Floyd has worked tirelessly for our military personnel throughout his long and distinguished career in the House of Representatives. Regrettably, due to the House Rules he will give up the chair of the Armed Services Committee at the end of this session. Although he will be missed as chairman, his leadership and concern for our military personnel will have a lasting legacy in this conference report and Floyd will continue to serve the people of South Carolina and the Nation as a member of the House Armed Services Committee. I congratulate Chairman Warner and Senator Levin on this conference report and urge my colleagues to give it their overwhelming support.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the Senator is right. Let's move forward and vote.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, we have heard much debate today about Federal judges. One would think that President Clinton has fared very poorly in the judicial confirmation process, but this is simply not true. He has done quite well with the cooperation of the Republican- controlled Senate. During the President's first term, the Senate confirmed nearly one- quarter of the entire Federal Judiciary. After today, the Senate will have confirmed 44 percent or 377 Clinton judges. It is no secret that while I served as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee during the first six years of the Reagan Administration, I made the confirmation of judges a top priority of the Committee. I am proud of our accomplishments during those years. Yet, with Republican control of the Congress, President Clinton's success rate is really no different. After today, the Senate will have confirmed only five more Article III judges for President Reagan than it has thus far for President Clinton. Today, the vacancy rate is 7.9 percent, and the Clinton Administration has recognized a 7 percent vacancy rate as virtual full employment for the Judiciary. The vacancy rate at the end of the Bush Administration was 11.5 percent, but there was no talk then about a vacancy crisis. At the end of the Bush Administraton, the Congress adjourned without acting on 53 Bush nominations. Today, there are only 38 Clinton nominees pending in Committee. The Fourth Circuit is a good example of the healthy status of the Judiciary. The court is operating very well and does not need more judges. In fact, today, it is the most efficient circuit. The Fourth Circuit takes less time than any other to decide a case on appeal. The truth is that, due to a lack of cases needing oral argument, the Fourth Circuit has cancelled at least one term of court for each of the past four years, and two terms of court for the past two years. The Chief Judge of the Fourth Circuit has made clear that additional judges are not needed, and he should know better than us the needs of his court. There is no good reason to add judges to the most efficient circuit in the nation. Given that a circuit judgeship costs about one million dollars per year for the life of the judge, it would be a waste of taxpayer money to do so. We also should not be misled by the fact that some vacancies are defined as a ``judicial emergency.'' The term is defined so broadly that, with one exception, all current circuit court judgeships that have been vacant for 18 months are considered ``emergencies.'' The issue of judgeships in the Federal courts is not just about numbers and statistics. Much more is at stake. Each judgeship is a life-time appointment that yields great power but is basically accountable to no one. The Senate has a Constitutional duty to review each nominee carefully and deliberately. We take this responsibility very seriously in the Judiciary Committee, as we must. We cannot be a rubber stamp for any Administration. The entire Nation loses when we allow judicial activists or judges who are soft on crime to be confirmed to these life-time positions. Under Senator Hatch's leadership, the Judiciary Committee has taken a fair and reasoned approach to the confirmation process. As a result, the Clinton Administration has done quite well regarding judicial confirmations.