J. Thurmond

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by Senator Simon and Senator Bumpers. The amendment would remove the firewall between defense and nondefense discretionary caps and would allow defense to be used as a convenient billpayer. This amendment encourages raiding defense accounts every time there is a fiscal problem. It will not restore flexibility to the budget process, nor help avoid any future Government shutdowns, as some would have you believe. Our flexibility to determine defense spending or reduce defense spending, if we so choose, is not restricted by firewalls. The Congress will continue to set spending priorities. Firewalls will ensure we live by those priorities. Firewalls and spending caps are important tools for maintaining fiscal discipline. Firewalls guarantee that if defense spending is reduced, the savings will go to deficit reduction rather than to other Government spending. If the Defense Department develops a requirement for additional funding, then firewalls will require the Department to provide an offset. Hard decisions must be made to balance this budget. We should not allow defense to be used as a billpayer without regard to the effects of these reductions on our military capabilities. Mr. President, the defense budget is in its 12th straight year of decline. The Secretary of Defense, service Secretaries, and Chiefs of the military services have all testified about their concerns regarding modernization funding. But we already have had a good debate on defense spending and had a vote. I do not need to waste more time going over those arguments. We must maintain discipline in the budget process. Firewalls contribute to that discipline. There is no easy way out. There is no convenient billpayer that will take care of all of our problems. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in support of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1997, the Republican budget. In this proposal, the Senate has before it a blueprint for balancing the budget and reducing the National debt. Mr. President, a budget is more than a set of numbers. It is an outline of priorities and policy decisions. What a refreshing contrast this budget resolution is to the budgets submitted by the President. It illustrates the difference in philosophy between those who wish to put Government first and those of us who believe in ``We the People.'' In his last State of the Union address, President Clinton declared the era of big government is over. While this was appealing political rhetoric, his budget actions do not support his words. The Clinton budgets implemented the largest tax increase in history, imposed the highest Federal tax burden ever, continued deficit spending, added to the national debt, substantially increased nondefense Government spending, and dangerously reduced funding for our national defense. Mr. President, in contrast, the Republican budget proposal will eliminate the Federal budget deficit by fiscal year 2002. It does so by slowing the growth rate of Federal spending. The budget resolution cuts how much money Washington spends on itself by trimming nondefense discretionary spending and holding defense spending at current levels. The resolution slows the rate of increase of spending for entitlement programs. The budget contemplates reforms in Medicaid and welfare. It implements changes which will maintain the solvency of the Medicare trust fund. Finally, after these reforms are enacted, the budget makes room for tax relief for America's working families. As a result of these actions, the Federal deficit will be eliminated and net interest obligations will be reduced. Mr. President, I support the overall direction of the proposed Senate budget resolution. I commend the chairman and members of the Senate Budget Committee for their efforts in bringing a resolution to the floor which controls entitlement spending, restrains the growth of Government, and eliminates annual deficits. Mr. President, we live in the greatest Nation on Earth. It provides Americans more freedom, more justice, more opportunity, and more hope than any Nation has ever provided any people in the history of the world. However, this great country of ours will be in jeopardy unless we do at least two things. First, we must provide an adequate defense to protect ourselves against the enemies who would destroy democracy and freedom. Second, we must put our fiscal house in order. Mr. President, regarding national defense, the President's budget proposes more reductions in defense spending. The Clinton budget fails to provide the resources necessary for readiness, modernization, or force structure. In short, the administration's defense spending plan buys an older, smaller, and less prepared defense force. In contrast, the funding for defense in the Republican budget allows the Armed Services Committee the opportunity to meet current readiness requirements, provide for improvements in the quality of life of military personnel and their families, and balance future needs of the military services for modernization. I commend Senator Domenici and the Members on both sides of the aisle for their support and commitment for a strong national defense. Another part of our national defense requirement is to provide for those veterans who have served our country. Those who have fulfilled their obligation of citizenship must not be deserted. Mr. President, the treatment by the President's budget of veterans' programs illustrates some of the gimmickry used to present the appearance of a balanced budget. Recently the Committee on Veterans' Affairs held a hearing on the President's fiscal year 1997 budget proposal for veterans programs, which contemplates steep reductions in veterans funding, particularly for medical care. I was concerned to hear the Secretary testify at that hearing that there was no policy behind the budget request. He went on to state that the President assured him that all of our outyear numbers were negotiable and would probably increase. Mr. President, I am sure the Secretary is optimistic regarding his ability to persuade the President. However, it strains the integrity of the balanced budget effort, which the President claims to support, when the administration discards its own budget before it is even submitted to the Congress. I am satisfied that the Republican budget protects veterans benefits and health care. It increases spending authority overall, and provides modest increases for VA medical care. Mr. President, this budget resolution is a good step in putting our fiscal house in order. It provides for restrained growth in overall Government spending. Because spending grows at a lower rate than projected revenue increases, the deficit will be reduced each year, and will be finally eliminated in fiscal year 2002. This budget resolution provides for real deficit reduction without raising taxes. American families and businesses have carried a heavy tax burden to support the appetite of the Federal Government. Under present tax policies, Mr. President, capital investment is punished, earnings of senior citizens are penalized, consumption is favored over savings, and America's families keep less and less of their earnings. This resolution says ``No.''--I repeat, ``No.''--to balancing the budget by additional taxes. Mr. President, the Republican budget proposal provides a clear alternative to the tax burden imposed under Clinton budgets. That burden included a $268 billion tax increase, with some provisions being retroactive. It increased the top tax rate, particularly hurting small businesses, increased tax rates on Social Security benefits, and increased the gas tax, affecting all Americans. President Clinton later admitted that he had made a mistake--that he raised taxes too much. Mr. President, I remind my colleagues that this Congress attempted to correct that mistake by passing a number of tax relief measures. These included a child tax credit for working families, expansion of individual retirement accounts, capital gains relief, an adoption tax credit, phaseout of the marriage penalty, and an interest deduction for student loans. However, these were all vetoed by--I repeat--they were all vetoed by the President. Mr. President, this budget resolution gives us another opportunity to provide tax relief to working families. Our tax system is not only an economic burden, but also an administrative nightmare. The aggravation level of the taxpayers of this country continues to rise. After bringing our budget into balance, we must work toward a fair and simplified tax structure. Mr. President, the framers of our Constitution clearly established the priorities of our national government. While we have adapted to meet current needs and circumstances, the underlying principles remain constant--to provide for our common defense, establish justice, and promote the general welfare. While this budget resolution is not perfect, it puts us on a course to reap the promises of this Nation-- liberty for ourselves and our posterity. As Thomas Jefferson once said, ``And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude.'' Mr. President, the choice for us is clear--let us choose economy and liberty. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to commend the able Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Smith, for the excellent tribute he has paid to Adm. Mike Boorda, whom we all held in such high esteem.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I was informed this afternoon that Adm. Mike Boorda, the Chief of Naval Operations, died today. I have little additional information at this time on what happened or how; but I want to take a minute to acknowledge the passing of a fine naval officer who made many extraordinary contributions to the Navy and to his country. I think this is a tragic day for both the Navy and the Nation. We lost an individual who was both a strong leader and a decent man. Admiral Boorda enlisted in the Navy in 1956 and rose from seaman to admiral. He was selected and confirmed as the 25th Chief of Naval Operations in April 1994. Prior to his confirmation as Chief of Naval Operations, he commanded all United States and NATO forces in Bosnia. As ranking minority and now Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I had the opportunity to work closely with Adm. Mike Boorda on many occasions. I found him to be an officer of great professional skill, who instilled confidence and stood as a model of what a dedicated and courageous officer and leader should be. Admiral Boorda took command of the Navy at a challenging time. His steady hand and firm leadership during a period of great change, a turbulent period of declining force structure and personnel reductions, and his firm commitment to professionalism and operational readiness, have kept the Navy on a steady course and sustained its excellence as a fighting force. Particularly impressive was the empathy and concern that Adm. Mike Boorda had for those under his command. As a former enlisted sailor, he had a keen appreciation of the hardships of service at sea and family separation that are a part of a sailor's daily existence. He understood their sacrifice and worked extremely hard to ensure the welfare of naval personnel. He never failed to advise me on conditions in the fleet during our frequent meetings. His concern for the quality of life of the men and women in the naval service was remarkable. During more than 40 years of service to the Navy and to his country, Adm. Mike Boorda made many extraordinary contributions to his country. He was man of great energy, vision, commitment, and patriotism. He was a man who deserved our gratitude and respect for his service while he lived, and our praise and prayers now that he is gone. We will miss him greatly. Our thoughts are with his family, his wife Betty, his four children, and his nine grandchildren. They include two sons and one daughter-in- law on active duty in the Navy. We extend our sympathy to them and wish them well. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THURMOND

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

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today Senator Bob Dole announced that he will be stepping down as a Member of the U.S. Senate. He has announced his resignation. I have been in the Senate for 40 years. I have been here with many leaders, majority and minority leaders. I can say that he is one of the ablest and finest leaders that this country has ever had serving in the Congress of the United States. He is a man of principle. He stands for what is right. He felt it his duty, since he is going to run for President, to give his full attention to that campaign. He felt he could not do both, look after the Senate's work and run for President, too. Unlike some people who have attempted to do both, he will give up all of the power in the Senate. He, as the majority leader here, has served the longest term, I believe, of any majority leader in history. He has made a fine record. He will give all that up because he wants to do his duty and feels he could not run for President and also look after his duties here in the Senate. Mr. President, he knows what responsibility means. He felt he could not be responsible to run in the campaign and run the Senate, too. So what did he do? Since he is going to run for President, he decided to resign from the U.S. Senate. He is giving up all of his power, as probably the most influential Member of the U.S. Senate, in his position as majority leader, and as an able Senator giving it all up. How many people would do that? Most people would hang on, say, ``Well, I can run for the Senate, I can run for the President, and stay in the Senate and still do my job.'' Not Bob Dole. He is not that kind of a man. He does not do things halfway. He puts his heart and soul into whatever he does. That is the reason he resigned from the Senate. Now, in my opinion, that shows character. I do not know of any quality about any person, man or woman, that is better than that of character. His behavior in public life and in private life has been exemplary. He does not know how to do wrong. We are proud that he is such a man. We are proud that he has lived the life he has and one with such outstanding service to this country. He is a man of courage. In World War II he served in the armed services in Italy. He was shot in the arm and other parts of his body. They thought he was going to die but he managed to survive. So many people felt he had no chance to recover but he would not give up. He is a fighter. He kept on keeping on until he finally restored his health and then returned to private life again. Yes, not only did he have physical courage with the enemy but he has moral courage. Sometimes I think moral courage is even greater than physical courage. He could stand up to people when he knew they were wrong and tell them so in a courteous way. I just feel that his courage was one of the strong factors in his life. Then, too, he is a man of great capacity. He could not have done what he did here in the Senate as majority leader if he had not been a man of great capacity, a man of great ability, who has led this Senate so wise and so well for so long. Yes, his capacity has been a great asset to this Nation. Bob Dole is a man of conviction. He knew what he stood for and he stood for it. He knew right from wrong and he followed the right. A man whose ideals were high, a man we could all be proud of because of his exemplary conduct and ideals. Also he is a man of compassion. He could walk with kings, yet he felt most at home with the common people. I have seen many instances in which he showed great compassion here with employees and with members of the public, with the unfortunate, with the disabled, with the troubled. Everybody at times has a problem. He took pleasure in helping people to solve their problems. He is a man of compassion and a man who loved people. In all of these things he was courteous. In his position here as majority leader he could have been short with people and he could have said things and gotten away with it. That would not have been characteristic of Bob Dole. He was always nice to people. He always tried to help people. For that reason, we highly respected him. Because of all these good qualities, the Senate has lost an ideal person. This country has lost a wonderful public leader. I predict it will not be long until he will, in his campaign, be successful and become President of the United States and render an even greater service. I predict that history will record him as one of the great persons of this century and of history, known for what he has done in the past but also for what he will do as President of the United States. I am proud to claim his friendship. I am proud that he is an American. I am pleased that he took the step he did today which shows strength, courage, and principle. We look forward to his coming back to the Government as President of the United States. Bob Dole is blessed with a devoted and lovely wife, Elizabeth. She is a great person in her own right and serves as president of the American Red Cross, former Secretary of Labor, and former Secretary of Transportation. She has been an inspiration in his life and will continue to be a great asset to him in every way possible in the years ahead. God bless her.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, prior to my remarks on this bill, I commend the able Senator from New Mexico for the fine job he does on the Budget Committee, and especially his attitude and what he has done for defense. I rise to oppose the Grassley amendment, which would reduce defense spending from the $265.6 billion of the proposed budget resolution to $257.3 billion. I understand that the amendment would, however, make additional funds available to the President if he certifies a requirement for such additional funds. This is an unprecedented approach and an unnecessary and inappropriate transfer of power and authority from the legislative branch to the executive branch. Let me be clear, Mr. President. The amendment of the Senator from Iowa is really a nullification of 75 percent of the Budget Committee's recommended increase to the President's budget request. Why would the President, who has already submitted his budget request, certify to the Congress that he needs additional funds for quality of life, modernization or readiness programs? Further, if he did request additional funds, those funds would likely be for programs that have not been directed by the Congress. We must all remember that the Constitution gives the Congress, not the President, the power to ``raise and support armies,'' and ``to provide and maintain a navy.'' Mr. President, I believe that the Budget Committee has acted wisely and prudently in recommdending an increase to the President's inadequate request for defense. In order to buy the same level of national security in 1997 as we did in 1996, we would have to spend $273 billion. The President's request is $18.6 billion below this. The budget resolution proposes to increase the budget for defense by $11.2 billion; therefore, we are still $7.4 billion below the fiscal year 1996 level of funding in real terms. Does the Senator from Iowa believe that our Armed Forces will be asked to do less in fiscal year 1997 than they did in fiscal year 1996? I ask him to answer that. The question we should be asking, therefore, is not whether we should increase the President's inadequate budget request by a minimal amount; rather the question should be: What risks are we taking by not adding more? Our Nation's top military leaders answer that question. General Shalikashvili, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, says he is ``very concerned that our procurement accounts are not where they ought to be.'' General Reimer, Army Chief of Staff, says that ``further deferral of modernization will incur significant risk to future readiness.'' Admiral Boorda, Chief of Naval Operations, says ``If we do not modernize, we ultimately place future readiness at risk.'' General Fogleman, Air Force Chief of Staff, says that ``Unless we recapitalize, we are not going to be ready to meet the threats of the future.'' And General Krulak, Marine Corps Commandant, says that ``The Marine Corps * * * cannot absorb further reductions without sacrificing critical core capabilities.'' These statements of our top military officers were made in open committee hearings. If they were free from political concerns, one could expect an even more candid, and dire, assessment. Even Secretary of Defense Perry has acknowledged that ``we have to start increasing the modernization program or, we will start to have a real problem of obsolescence in the field.'' The Clinton administration has certainly achieved consensus among the services and the Department of Defense, but in a way that the Goldwater-Nichols Act never envisioned. Our defense needs are underfunded, from both a historical and operational point of view. We are at the lowest level of defense spending since 1950. Procurement has been reduced by 70 percent since 1985, and by more than 40 percent under the Clinton administration. Programs to support our servicemen and women's quality of life are inadequate. Our ability to protect our soldiers from ballistic missile attacks suffers from lack of funding and commitment. Our military research and development is anemic. If anything, we should be considering amendments which provide floors--not ceilings--on defense funding. I realize that our great Nation has numerous domestic and international obligations. But none--I repeat none--of these obligations rises to the level of our responsibility to provide for the common defense. Protection of our Nation's citizens is the Federal Government's first order of business. Without meeting this paramount obligation, the basic guarantees of ``life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'' can easily become empty promises. Defense spending is now at its lowest level in the second half of this century. This half century has been the era of American superpower status. Our superpower status is not something we can maintain cheaply. We won the cold war through our steadfastness and robust military capabilities. Yet, we are asked by the administration and supporters of this amendment to continue undermining our military capabilities. I hope the Members of the Senate will agree with me that we cannot afford for our Nation to be less vigilant, less capable, and less ready. I strongly urge the Senate to vote against the Grassley amendment.

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, 7 or 8 minutes.

Mr. THURMOND. Go ahead.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, pursuant to section 304(b) of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. sec. 1384(b)), a notice of proposed rulemaking was submitted by the Office of Compliance, U.S. Congress. The notice relates to Federal service labor- management relations (Regulations under section 220(d) of the Congressional Accountability Act.) Section 304(b) requires this notice to be printed in the Congressional Record, therefore I ask unanimous consent that the notice be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

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

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, it is no secret that a career dedicated to the service of others is a calling that garners minimal financial reward and often little recognition. Individuals will labor their whole lives working to make the world a slightly better place, only to receive few, if any, accolades or commendations. Today, I want to take this opportunity to recognize one person who has dedicated his life to God and his fellow man, Dr. W. James Rivers, and whose commitment to both has made South Carolina a better place to live. Dr. Rivers' calling to the ministry did not come until he was in his thirties, but he knew early on that he wanted to dedicate his life to serving others. Upon his graduation from the University of South Carolina, he earned a commission in the United States Air Force and found himself on the Korean Peninsula, where the United States and the United Nations were waging a war against the expansionist Communists of North Korea and China. The fighting in this conflict was brutal and it was not long before the young officer was in the thick of it, and during his time in Korea, he flew 50 combat missions against our enemies. When a cease-fire agreement was finally reached, and the shooting finally stopped, James Rivers decided to remain in the Air Force and climbed to the rank of captain; however, in 1958, he heard the Lord's call, resigned his commission, and began the process of becoming a minister. After returning to school, Dr. Rivers began his second career of service, this time to God, which began with a 4-year stint ministering at Dutch Fork Baptist Church. In 1967, Dr. Rivers moved from Columbia, SC, to my hometown of Aiken, where he became the pastor of Millbrook Baptist Church. For the past 29 years, he has ministered to the needs of his flock with great compassion, and has proven to be an effective leader for his church, performing more than 1,400 baptisms, and more than 1,000 marriages. Additionally, under his direction, Millbrook Baptist Church has more than trebled in size, added both a Christian Activities Center and educational building, and has established three mission churches in other States. It takes a man of great spirit, ability, and energy to accomplish such impressive tasks. Mr. President, Dr. W. James Rivers will be retiring from his career as a minister on May 19, and in recognition of his many years of selfless service, the mayor of Aiken has set aside that Sunday as Jim Rivers Day. I am pleased to join my fellow Aikenites and South Carolinians in recognizing and thanking Dr. W. James Rivers for all his contributions to our State. We are grateful for all his hard work and proud to claim him as a leader of our community.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, America is a nation that has a fascination with pop culture, especially the movies and television, and individuals often form their opinions about issues based on what they see on screens in their living room or in a theater. Unfortunately, this practice often leads to misimpressions about the facts of life. Take for example organized crime. So often in movies and television shows, those who are involved in organized crime are depicted as sharp dressed and honorable men who simply choose to make their money and live their lives outside the law. One cannot help but have a romanticized and idealized notion of what it is like to be a wiseguy. To those of us who understand and study such issues, we know that nothing could be further from the truth. The real faces of organized crime are the heartless killers and goons who put a stranglehold on trucking, rackets, and unions, they are not manicured, honorable men; they are the outlaw bikers who peddle methamphetamines and dabble in white slavery, they are not fun loving rebels who just want to ride motorcycles; they are the gangs from our cities' ghettos who wholesale crack and terrorize neighborhoods with their indiscriminate violence, they are not misunderstood youths; and, they are the ``new mafias'' from places such as Russia, Mexico, and Vietnam, men and women who prefer intimidation and criminal enterprise to hard work, unlike their honest immigrant peers who are fighting to realize the American dream. Organized crime is about as an ideal lifestyle as having a terminal disease, and it is just as deadly and destructive. Simply put, in a nation of laws, there is no room to tolerate organizations whose sole reason for existence is to commit crime and victimize hard working and honest Americans. In the last 30 years, the Federal Government has begun to take the fight against organized crime right to the enemy's doorstep. Through statutes such as RICO, the allocation of resources dedicated to combating organized crime, and intensified cooperation between law enforcement agencies, we are making real progress in subduing our Nation's criminal classes. Today, I want to take a moment to salute an individual who has devoted his life to this fight, Mr. Charles D. ``Chuck'' Lowe, who serves as the Director of the Regional Organized Crime Information Center. Chuck Lowe began his career in law enforcement back in the late 1950's as a member of the U.S. Coast Guard's New York City Port Security Unit. In that position, he worked closely with the New York Police Department, the Customs Service, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Certainly it must have been his time fighting crime in the city that never sleeps where he found the career he loved and he learned the importance and effectiveness of cooperation between enforcement agencies. In the years following Chuck's enlistment in the Coast Guard, he served ably and capably with the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Police Department as a plainclothes detective, and then with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. During his 22-year career with BATF, Chuck was involved in a multitude of interesting and dangerous cases, he helped to protect the President, and he held a number of key leadership positions within that agency. His efforts as a Federal agent earned him numerous citations and recognitions, including awards for superior performance, case preparation, and training. In 1988, Chuck left the BATF to join the Regional Organized Crime Information Center [ROCIC], an organization committed to collecting, evaluating, analyzing, and disseminating information concerning whitecollar career criminals, narcotics violators, gangs, and other violent offenders. As he had done in his previous assignments, Chuck immediately threw himself into his work, and it was a surprise to no one when he became the Director of ROCIC in 1991, only 3 short years after joining the organization. Under his supervision, ROCIC has grown tremendously, more than tripling the number of agencies it serves, and it has greatly expanded the services it provides to its 1,157 members. His efforts to modernize ROCIC have improved morale at that agency, made it more efficient, and has given law enforcement officers a potent tool with which to coordinate their efforts against organized crime. Mr. President, it is with regret that I report that Chuck Lowe has decided to hang up his badge and gun and retire from his distinguished career as a law enforcement leader. In his more than 30-year career as a cop, Chuck has contributed much to keeping our streets safe. We are proud of the work he has done and we wish him well in the years to come.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, if the Palmetto State is famous for textiles, then Mr. Walter S. Montgomery, Sr., is one of a handful of South Carolinians whose name is synonymous with that industry. Without question, he is a man who has left his mark on our State and Nation, and it is with great sadness that I rise today to note his recent passing. ``Mr. Walter,'' as he was affectionately known by his friends and employees, died late last month, ending what was a lifelong commitment to service and industry. From the time he took over his family's textile mill to the day he died, Walter Montgomery worked hard to advance textile manufacturing, to strengthen the South Carolina economy, and to improve the quality of life for the South Carolina Upstate, especially his beloved hometown of Spartanburg. Known as a benevolent boss, Mr. Walter would stroll the floors of his factories in his shirtsleeves, supervising operations and talking with his employees. His interest in those who worked for him extended beyond the plant walls, and he was known to spend afternoons on the front porches of the homes of Spartan Mills workers, passing the time and getting to know those in his employ. Additionally, Walter Montgomery worked hard to create a job place that was modern, clean, and safe, a far cry from the old style mills of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Walter Montgomery joined the family run Spartan Mills shortly after his graduation from the Virginia Military Institute and eventually became its president and chairman of the board. Through his hard work, determination, and business acumen, Spartan Mills grew from 1 plant to 10, and became the largest employer in Spartanburg County. A young and dynamic executive, Mr. Montgomery became a force in the national textile industry and held leadership positions with the South Carolina Textile Manufacturers Association, the J.E. Sirrine Foundation, the Institute of Textile Technology, and the American Textile Manufacturers Association. His professional accomplishments earned him recognitions from the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce, which named him Businessman of the Year; and from the ATMI, their organization's prestigious and coveted Samuel Slater Award. Equally important to the contributions Mr. Montgomery made to business was the role he filled as a civic leader. Spartanburg and the Upstate Region benefited handsomely from the efforts of Mr. Montgomery who helped to establish the University of South Carolina at Spartanburg; served as a trustee of the Spartanburg Music Foundation and the Spartanburg Historical Society; and, organized the Spartanburg County Foundation. He also served for 55 years on the board of trustees at Converse College, was a booster for educational causes, and was an active leader in the United Way. For these undertakings, and many others, Mr. Montgomery was awarded the Order of the Palmetto; inducted into the South Carolina Business Hall of Fame; was awarded three honorary degrees; and, was recognized with almost countless citations from various business and community groups. Mr. President, Walter Montgomery was the type of person that any community or State would be fortunate to have as one of its citizens. I can think of no more fitting tribute to Walter than the fact that he was so well thought of, that hundreds of people came to pay their last respects to this man. As a matter of fact, on the day of his funeral, the Episcopal Church of the Advent was packed to capacity and loudspeakers had to be placed outside the church in order for mourners to be able to hear the service. While we will all miss Walter, I hope that others will honor his legacy by trying to match the example he set for service to business and community. I join a long list of people who express their sympathy and condolences to the family of Mr. Walter Montgomery, including his sisters, Kate Montgomery Ward and Lucile Montgomery Cart; his son, Mr. Walter Montgomery, Jr.; his daughter, Rose M. Johnston; and his many grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. These people are kin to a man who was one of a kind.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, pursuant to section 3(b) of Senate Resolution 400, 94th Congress, I ask that S. 1718, the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997, be referred to the Senate Armed Services Committee. S. 1718. An original bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 1997 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and for the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes. Referred to the Committee on Armed Services for a period not to exceed 30 days of session, pursuant to section 3(b) of Senate Resolution 400 of the 94th Congress to report or be discharged.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1664, the Immigration Control and Financial Responsibility Act of 1996. It cannot be disputed that our immigration system is currently fraught with serious problems, including a flood of illegal immigrants, criminal aliens, undesirable burdens on public services, and many other concerns. These problems weaken our country as a whole, and erode public support for basic principles which are central to our Nation. Americans are a generous people, but they do not like to have their generosity abused. I am pleased that we have confronted these hard issues with both compassion and resolve, and that the Senate is now giving consideration to final passage of this immigration reform bill. Among the many notable provisions in this immigration bill are those designed to increase enforcement of our borders; limit ineligible aliens' public benefits; improve deportation procedures; and reduce alien smuggling. There is no serious disagreement over the pressing need to strengthen our laws against illegal immigration, but there has been much debate over the details of how this can best be achieved. I am committed to enacting this legislation in order to sharply reduce the flow of illegal aliens into our Nation, by ensuring adequate enforcement along our borders, among other things. Mr. President, I commend Senator Simpson for his leadership on immigration issues, and particularly on his role in bringing this important legislation to this point today. Although we have not agreed on every issue, the commitment and expertise of Senator Simpson have been invaluable in moving needed reform forward. Immigration matters are complex and tend to be divisive. It is my belief, however, that illegal immigration is among the most serious problems confronting our Nation today. We should pass this legislation to address these problems, and I urge my colleagues to adopt this measure. relax naturalization requirements for HMONG patriots

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services, I report favorably 16 nomination lists in the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy which were printed in full in the Congressional Records of February 1, March 20, 25, 26, and April 15, 1996, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar, that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a woman, Virginia N. foster, who, through her 50 years of service to our Nation, has helped to keep the United States safe and secure, and is someone who is worthy of our thanks. Many of you may already know Mrs. Foster from your dealings with the Air Force's Directorate of legislative Liaison, where she has worked for the past 21 years. Through 12 Congresses, the 93d to the 104th, she has dutifully and faithfully assisted Members and their staffs in resolving issues and questions concerning the Air Force. Due to her long tenure, she has become more than a valued employee, she has become an important asset to the Air Force, providing her superiors and co- workers with an encyclopedic knowledge of Air Force policy, and an institutional memory that is unmatched by anyone else working in Legislative Liaison Directorate. What is perhaps most amazing about Mrs. Foster is not necessarily her impressive abilities as an employee, but that her 23 years of working with Congress does not comprise even half of her civil service career, which began in 1944 when she went to work at a German Prisoner of War Camp in Texas. In subsequent years, she has held many positions, though since 1951, she has lived in the Washington, DC area where she has never been too far from either the U.S. Congress or the headquarters of the Air Force, both institutions which she has served with devotion and unflagging competence. Mr. President, Mrs. Foster will mark her fifth decade of Government service on May 1 of this year. On that day, the Air Force will present her with the ``Exceptional Civilian Service Award'' in recognition of her dedicated work and support, a recognition of which she is truly deserving and in which she can take great pride. I know that those in this Chamber who know Mrs. Foster will want to join me in expressing our gratitude for her assistance to us over the years, and in congratulating her on celebrating 50 years of service to our Nation. We wish her great health and happiness in the years to come, and hope that she continues to be an important part of life on Capitol Hill.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to permanently suspend the duty on the chemical tetra amino biphenyl [TAB]. This chemical is imported to the United States from Germany. TAB is an essential raw material used in the production of a high performance fiber called ``PBI.'' PBI is a unique heat and chemical resistant fiber that, in some uses, can be a suitable replacement for asbestos. PBI has a wide range of thermal protective applications including flight suits and garments for firefighters, boiler tenders, and refinery workers. Mr. President, in previous Congresses, I introduced similar legislation to apply duty-free treatment to TAB. These bills were ultimately incorporated into the Omnibus Tariff and Trade Act of 1984, the Omnibus Trade Act of 1988, and the Customs and Trade Act of 1990. The current duty suspension for this chemical expired December 31, 1992. During the Uruguay Round negotiations, the Administration made a commitment to negotiate the elimination of duties on products covered by duty suspension legislation. However, TAB was inadvertently deleted from Tariff Schedule XX during talks on the GATT Agreement. This chemical has been on the duty suspension list for several years. It is a noncontroversial item and should have been included in the final Tariff Schedule XX approved at Marrakesh. Mr. President, it is my understanding that TAB was on the original Department of Commerce ``Consolidated Duty Suspension List'' of products to be incorporated into the U.S. offer and on subsequent offers until the final document was prepared in March. The February 25th offer, which was the last list made available to the public, included TAB as ``free'' under the proposed HTS 2921.59.14. When the importing company asked why it was deleted, they were told that it was incorporated into either the pharmaceutical or intermediate chemicals for dyes lists. Recently, importers were surprised to discover that TAB was not covered under any duty suspension and would be assessed a 12.8 percent duty. According to the company, it is not covered under any tariff heading, no industry opposition has been found, and no instructions were issued which would have deleted TAB from the list. I hope the Senate will consider this measure expeditiously. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to permanently suspend the duty on the chemical tetra amino biphenyl [TAB]. This chemical is imported to the United States from Germany. TAB is an essential raw material used in the production of a high performance fiber called ``PBI.'' PBI is a unique heat and chemical resistant fiber that, in some uses, can be a suitable replacement for asbestos. PBI has a wide range of thermal protective applications including flight suits and garments for firefighters, boiler tenders, and refinery workers. Mr. President, in previous Congresses, I introduced similar legislation to apply duty-free treatment to TAB. These bills were ultimately incorporated into the Omnibus Tariff and Trade Act of 1984, the Omnibus Trade Act of 1988, and the Customs and Trade Act of 1990. The current duty suspension for this chemical expired December 31, 1992. During the Uruguay Round negotiations, the Administration made a commitment to negotiate the elimination of duties on products covered by duty suspension legislation. However, TAB was inadvertently deleted from Tariff Schedule XX during talks on the GATT Agreement. This chemical has been on the duty suspension list for several years. It is a noncontroversial item and should have been included in the final Tariff Schedule XX approved at Marrakesh. Mr. President, it is my understanding that TAB was on the original Department of Commerce ``Consolidated Duty Suspension List'' of products to be incorporated into the U.S. offer and on subsequent offers until the final document was prepared in March. The February 25th offer, which was the last list made available to the public, included TAB as ``free'' under the proposed HTS 2921.59.14. When the importing company asked why it was deleted, they were told that it was incorporated into either the pharmaceutical or intermediate chemicals for dyes lists. Recently, importers were surprised to discover that TAB was not covered under any duty suspension and would be assessed a 12.8 percent duty. According to the company, it is not covered under any tariff heading, no industry opposition has been found, and no instructions were issued which would have deleted TAB from the list. I hope the Senate will consider this measure expeditiously. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Professional Sports Antitrust Clarification Act of 1996 to address underlying problems which have resulted in recent franchise instability and movement in professional sports, particularly the National Football League. My legislation clarifies that the antitrust laws do not apply to professional sports leagues and their member franchises when they establish rules and make decisions about whether a team may change its home territory. This antitrust protection is obtained, however, only if the sports league provides notice and a hearing and examines appropriate factors prior to its decision on relocation, and institutes revenue sharing of the public benefits received by its teams, in order to reduce the incentive for teams to move simply to reap large public subsides. I will clarify the importance of these points in a moment. Let me initially explain why this issue deserves the attention of the Congress. First, larger and larger amounts of public funds seem to be spent subsidizing professional sports, by building new or improved stadiums, providing rent abatement and special tax treatment, and even making direct cash payments. Cities and States are being pitted against each other by the threat or promise that a team will relocate depending on the subsidy offered, which raises serious questions about the appropriate use of scarce public resources. Baltimore and Cleveland made headlines last winter by competing to be the hometown of the Browns football team, with hundreds of millions of public dollars at stake. The resolution, of course, was for both cities to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into new or improved stadiums so each could secure a football team. Even more remarkable, perhaps, is the report that Cincinnati has been handing over $3 million in cash to its football team in each of the last several years to stave off relocation. Second, professional sports are an important part of American life, emotionally as well as financially, and relocation of a popular team can devastate its fans and shake the confidence of its hometown. The Browns' announcement that they intended to move to Baltimore upset the team's fans tremendously both in Cleveland and around the country. The current willingness of so many teams to consider moving frightens fans of all teams, regardless of whether their own team is openly threatening a move. The current level of sports franchise instability is at its highest since the Congress focused its attention on these issues in the 1980's. In 1982 and 1985, I held several hearings as chairman of the Judiciary Committee on legislation dealing with sports franchise relocation. Since that time, the financial stakes for local and State governments have escalated. The public funds routinely expended to keep a team in place or entice a team to move seem to have risen from tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars. At a time when public resources at all levels of government are becoming ever tighter, this transfer of scarce public funds to rich owners and rich players is remarkable. Accordingly, it is time to address these issues. Two hearings have been held in the Senate Judiciary Committee in recent months on these issues. As chairman of the Antitrust, Business Rights, and Corporation Subcommittee, I chaired a hearing on November 29, 1995, which analyzed sports franchise movement. Witnesses included a range of elected officials, sports league commissioners, and antitrust and economic experts. Senator Hatch chaired a second hearing of the full Judiciary Committee on January 23, 1996, in order to further examine these issues. This legislation is an outgrowth of those hearings. Let me turn to the specifics of the legislation I am introducing today. My bill does not grant a special exemption from current antitrust law, but essentially codifies existing judicial interpretations which permit a sports league to determine where its member franchises may operate, provided certain requirements are met. My legislation clarifies and provides certainty in this complex area of the law, where costs of defending claims are always high, and any damages resulting from liability or an incorrect judicial decision are trebled and may amount to hundreds of millions of dollars or more. Antitrust certainty would restore integrity to the decision- making processes of professional sports leagues which have been chilled by the prospect of huge treble damage judgments. A sports league cannot enjoy this antitrust certainty, however, unless it meets three requirements set forth in the legislation. First, the league must provide notice and a hearing to all interested parties concerning a team's proposed move. Second, the league must protect the public interest by considering specified factors in deciding whether to permit the move. Last, the league must promote comparable economic opportunities for its teams by sharing revenue derived from the public benefits and subsidies the teams receive. This conditional antitrust protection will help resolve the problems of franchise instability caused by large public subsidies. The antitrust certainty provided by this bill will permit a sports league to take more decisive action to stop teams from moving when the league believes relocation will not serve the public interest. The requirements that the league analyze specific factors and provide notice and a hearing to interested parties before deciding whether a team can relocate will help ensure that proper decisions are made. The third requirement, instituting revenue sharing of public benefits, is crucial to address an underlying cause of sports franchise instability. Unlike the first two requirements, the effectiveness of revenue sharing does not depend on the opinion of the league about a particular move. Let me briefly explain the economic background of this revenue sharing requirement. As revealed during my Antitrust Subcommittee hearing, the franchise instability we are now experiencing is largely the result of changing economics within major league sports. Now that players are free agents, competition among owners for the best talent has driven player salaries to amazing heights. This, in turn, has increased pressure on owners to increase their revenues, particularly relative to other owners, in order to compete for the best players. In this competition for talent, the total amount of an owner's revenue matters less than whether that owner has fallen behind the other owners. Football, hockey, and basketball each share a significant portion of total revenues among the teams in the league. Because owners seek to better their positions compared to other owners, however, they naturally seek to raise revenue in areas where revenue is not shared. As a result, owners aggressively seek new public benefits and subsidies, often through new or improved stadiums with more luxury suites as we have seen in football, because they have not been required to share that revenue. In this effort, owners routinely use threats of relocation to another city as leverage. Let me emphasize that my legislation would not in any way prohibit public funds from being used to attract or keep a team, if a city or State voluntarily decides to allocate its resources in that way. Instead, my legislation would require the league to promote comparable opportunities for all teams by equalizing the public benefits among them. This would level the playing field, so to speak, so that teams need not move or threaten to move in order to obtain more public funds to keep from falling behind others in the league. Let me illustrate how this is intended to work in practice. Last Fall, Art Modell, owner of the Cleveland Browns, announced that he planned to move his team from Cleveland to Baltimore. His move reportedly was motivated by financial pressure on the franchise caused by rapidly increasing player salaries, plus promises of large public benefits from Baltimore. If my revenue-sharing provision had been in place, however, Mr. Modell would have faced different options. Under my legislation, the league would have instituted procedures to promote comparable economic opportunities to address disparities in team revenue due to public benefits and subsidies. So in our example, if Mr. Modell was obtaining fewer public benefits in Cleveland than average, he would receive transfers to bring his team up to the league average. On the other hand, if the annual public benefits received for moving to Baltimore pushed Mr. Modell above the average, he would have to share some of the value of the public benefits in order to keep his team at the league average. Faced with these choices and a hometown that loved his team, it is hard to imagine that Mr. Modell would have chosen to move--and endure tremendous criticism--if he would receive the league average either way. Even if Mr. Modell still wished to relocate, however, the league might well have blocked the move, based on the factors established and the antitrust certainty provided by this legislation. Of course, it is sometimes appropriate and even desirable for a team to relocate, such as when the fans and local business community do not adequately appreciate and support their team. My revenue-sharing requirement would not stop such moves, but would encourage professional sports to look more to private funding than to public subsidies in such cases. Nor does this revenue-sharing requirement stop a community from using public funds to construct or improve a stadium or arena if it wishes to do so. The provision would require the team using the facility to share revenue only if the team receives financial benefits as a result of the public expenditures, such as rent abatement or extra luxury suite income, which exceed the league average. In other words, if the city chose to build or renovate a stadium, and used any additional revenues to repay the public expenditures for the construction, those new revenues would not be included in any revenue-sharing arrangement. As I indicated earlier, the recent problems with franchise instability have occurred largely in the National Football League. It may be no coincidence that since a $49 million antitrust judgment was levied against the NFL for trying to block the Raiders' move to Los Angeles in the 1980's, football has been more reluctant than basketball and hockey to risk antitrust litigation over the propriety of league actions. It should be noted that my legislation does not require any league to take any action, but simply provides antitrust certainty to those leagues which choose to comply with the bill's requirements. Some leagues may not choose to participate initially. Certainly this legislation should not be taken as any indication that joint conduct by a league in addressing franchise movement or any other issue would be illegal under the current state of antitrust law. The conduct of a league may very well be found lawful under the antitrust laws when making and enforcing rules governing franchise relocation by its teams, without consideration of this legislation. My bill simply provides certainty to leagues that choose to comply with its terms. Finally, this bill does not limit its antitrust clarification to the major sports, but defines professional sports league broadly. It should be noted, however, that major league baseball is excluded from the bill as long as baseball's judicially created antitrust exemption concerning franchise relocation remains in place. I would hasten to add that franchise relocation issues are expressly not affected by the separate baseball legislation, S. 627, that I introduced with Senator Hatch and others, to limit baseball's judicially created antitrust exemption. Let me repeat so there is no confusion: neither this legislation I am introducing today, nor our baseball legislation, S. 627, which has passed both the Antitrust Subcommittee and the full Judiciary Committee, would in any way impact baseball's current ability to control franchise movement. Indeed, this new legislation along with S. 627 would go a long way toward putting all professional sports on an even footing under our Nation's antitrust laws. Mr. President, the instability of sports franchises caused by large public subsidies of professional sports raises important issues which have a direct and significant impact on the lives and finances of most Americans. The Professional Sports Antitrust Clarification Act will help to resolve these concerns. I send the bill to the desk and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, pursuant to section 304(d) of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1384(d)), various notices of issuance of final regulations, together with a copy of the final regulations, were submitted by the Office of Compliance, U.S. Congress. These regulations relate to the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988. The notices announce the issuance of final regulations on these matters with an effective date of April 16, 1996. The Congressional Accountability Act specifies that the notices and regulations be printed in the Congressional Record. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the notices and issued regulations be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Professional Sports Antitrust Clarification Act of 1996 to address underlying problems which have resulted in recent franchise instability and movement in professional sports, particularly the National Football League. My legislation clarifies that the antitrust laws do not apply to professional sports leagues and their member franchises when they establish rules and make decisions about whether a team may change its home territory. This antitrust protection is obtained, however, only if the sports league provides notice and a hearing and examines appropriate factors prior to its decision on relocation, and institutes revenue sharing of the public benefits received by its teams, in order to reduce the incentive for teams to move simply to reap large public subsides. I will clarify the importance of these points in a moment. Let me initially explain why this issue deserves the attention of the Congress. First, larger and larger amounts of public funds seem to be spent subsidizing professional sports, by building new or improved stadiums, providing rent abatement and special tax treatment, and even making direct cash payments. Cities and States are being pitted against each other by the threat or promise that a team will relocate depending on the subsidy offered, which raises serious questions about the appropriate use of scarce public resources. Baltimore and Cleveland made headlines last winter by competing to be the hometown of the Browns football team, with hundreds of millions of public dollars at stake. The resolution, of course, was for both cities to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into new or improved stadiums so each could secure a football team. Even more remarkable, perhaps, is the report that Cincinnati has been handing over $3 million in cash to its football team in each of the last several years to stave off relocation. Second, professional sports are an important part of American life, emotionally as well as financially, and relocation of a popular team can devastate its fans and shake the confidence of its hometown. The Browns' announcement that they intended to move to Baltimore upset the team's fans tremendously both in Cleveland and around the country. The current willingness of so many teams to consider moving frightens fans of all teams, regardless of whether their own team is openly threatening a move. The current level of sports franchise instability is at its highest since the Congress focused its attention on these issues in the 1980's. In 1982 and 1985, I held several hearings as chairman of the Judiciary Committee on legislation dealing with sports franchise relocation. Since that time, the financial stakes for local and State governments have escalated. The public funds routinely expended to keep a team in place or entice a team to move seem to have risen from tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars. At a time when public resources at all levels of government are becoming ever tighter, this transfer of scarce public funds to rich owners and rich players is remarkable. Accordingly, it is time to address these issues. Two hearings have been held in the Senate Judiciary Committee in recent months on these issues. As chairman of the Antitrust, Business Rights, and Corporation Subcommittee, I chaired a hearing on November 29, 1995, which analyzed sports franchise movement. Witnesses included a range of elected officials, sports league commissioners, and antitrust and economic experts. Senator Hatch chaired a second hearing of the full Judiciary Committee on January 23, 1996, in order to further examine these issues. This legislation is an outgrowth of those hearings. Let me turn to the specifics of the legislation I am introducing today. My bill does not grant a special exemption from current antitrust law, but essentially codifies existing judicial interpretations which permit a sports league to determine where its member franchises may operate, provided certain requirements are met. My legislation clarifies and provides certainty in this complex area of the law, where costs of defending claims are always high, and any damages resulting from liability or an incorrect judicial decision are trebled and may amount to hundreds of millions of dollars or more. Antitrust certainty would restore integrity to the decision- making processes of professional sports leagues which have been chilled by the prospect of huge treble damage judgments. A sports league cannot enjoy this antitrust certainty, however, unless it meets three requirements set forth in the legislation. First, the league must provide notice and a hearing to all interested parties concerning a team's proposed move. Second, the league must protect the public interest by considering specified factors in deciding whether to permit the move. Last, the league must promote comparable economic opportunities for its teams by sharing revenue derived from the public benefits and subsidies the teams receive. This conditional antitrust protection will help resolve the problems of franchise instability caused by large public subsidies. The antitrust certainty provided by this bill will permit a sports league to take more decisive action to stop teams from moving when the league believes relocation will not serve the public interest. The requirements that the league analyze specific factors and provide notice and a hearing to interested parties before deciding whether a team can relocate will help ensure that proper decisions are made. The third requirement, instituting revenue sharing of public benefits, is crucial to address an underlying cause of sports franchise instability. Unlike the first two requirements, the effectiveness of revenue sharing does not depend on the opinion of the league about a particular move. Let me briefly explain the economic background of this revenue sharing requirement. As revealed during my Antitrust Subcommittee hearing, the franchise instability we are now experiencing is largely the result of changing economics within major league sports. Now that players are free agents, competition among owners for the best talent has driven player salaries to amazing heights. This, in turn, has increased pressure on owners to increase their revenues, particularly relative to other owners, in order to compete for the best players. In this competition for talent, the total amount of an owner's revenue matters less than whether that owner has fallen behind the other owners. Football, hockey, and basketball each share a significant portion of total revenues among the teams in the league. Because owners seek to better their positions compared to other owners, however, they naturally seek to raise revenue in areas where revenue is not shared. As a result, owners aggressively seek new public benefits and subsidies, often through new or improved stadiums with more luxury suites as we have seen in football, because they have not been required to share that revenue. In this effort, owners routinely use threats of relocation to another city as leverage. Let me emphasize that my legislation would not in any way prohibit public funds from being used to attract or keep a team, if a city or State voluntarily decides to allocate its resources in that way. Instead, my legislation would require the league to promote comparable opportunities for all teams by equalizing the public benefits among them. This would level the playing field, so to speak, so that teams need not move or threaten to move in order to obtain more public funds to keep from falling behind others in the league. Let me illustrate how this is intended to work in practice. Last Fall, Art Modell, owner of the Cleveland Browns, announced that he planned to move his team from Cleveland to Baltimore. His move reportedly was motivated by financial pressure on the franchise caused by rapidly increasing player salaries, plus promises of large public benefits from Baltimore. If my revenue-sharing provision had been in place, however, Mr. Modell would have faced different options. Under my legislation, the league would have instituted procedures to promote comparable economic opportunities to address disparities in team revenue due to public benefits and subsidies. So in our example, if Mr. Modell was obtaining fewer public benefits in Cleveland than average, he would receive transfers to bring his team up to the league average. On the other hand, if the annual public benefits received for moving to Baltimore pushed Mr. Modell above the average, he would have to share some of the value of the public benefits in order to keep his team at the league average. Faced with these choices and a hometown that loved his team, it is hard to imagine that Mr. Modell would have chosen to move--and endure tremendous criticism--if he would receive the league average either way. Even if Mr. Modell still wished to relocate, however, the league might well have blocked the move, based on the factors established and the antitrust certainty provided by this legislation. Of course, it is sometimes appropriate and even desirable for a team to relocate, such as when the fans and local business community do not adequately appreciate and support their team. My revenue-sharing requirement would not stop such moves, but would encourage professional sports to look more to private funding than to public subsidies in such cases. Nor does this revenue-sharing requirement stop a community from using public funds to construct or improve a stadium or arena if it wishes to do so. The provision would require the team using the facility to share revenue only if the team receives financial benefits as a result of the public expenditures, such as rent abatement or extra luxury suite income, which exceed the league average. In other words, if the city chose to build or renovate a stadium, and used any additional revenues to repay the public expenditures for the construction, those new revenues would not be included in any revenue-sharing arrangement. As I indicated earlier, the recent problems with franchise instability have occurred largely in the National Football League. It may be no coincidence that since a $49 million antitrust judgment was levied against the NFL for trying to block the Raiders' move to Los Angeles in the 1980's, football has been more reluctant than basketball and hockey to risk antitrust litigation over the propriety of league actions. It should be noted that my legislation does not require any league to take any action, but simply provides antitrust certainty to those leagues which choose to comply with the bill's requirements. Some leagues may not choose to participate initially. Certainly this legislation should not be taken as any indication that joint conduct by a league in addressing franchise movement or any other issue would be illegal under the current state of antitrust law. The conduct of a league may very well be found lawful under the antitrust laws when making and enforcing rules governing franchise relocation by its teams, without consideration of this legislation. My bill simply provides certainty to leagues that choose to comply with its terms. Finally, this bill does not limit its antitrust clarification to the major sports, but defines professional sports league broadly. It should be noted, however, that major league baseball is excluded from the bill as long as baseball's judicially created antitrust exemption concerning franchise relocation remains in place. I would hasten to add that franchise relocation issues are expressly not affected by the separate baseball legislation, S. 627, that I introduced with Senator Hatch and others, to limit baseball's judicially created antitrust exemption. Let me repeat so there is no confusion: neither this legislation I am introducing today, nor our baseball legislation, S. 627, which has passed both the Antitrust Subcommittee and the full Judiciary Committee, would in any way impact baseball's current ability to control franchise movement. Indeed, this new legislation along with S. 627 would go a long way toward putting all professional sports on an even footing under our Nation's antitrust laws. Mr. President, the instability of sports franchises caused by large public subsidies of professional sports raises important issues which have a direct and significant impact on the lives and finances of most Americans. The Professional Sports Antitrust Clarification Act will help to resolve these concerns. I send the bill to the desk and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I served as a conferee representing the Senate, and I am pleased that the House and Senate conferees have resolved the differences between our respective bills to combat terrorism. We must send a clear message to those who engage in this heinous conduct that the American people will not tolerate cowardly acts of terrorism, in any fashion--whether their source is international or domestic. It is important that the Congress work closely with Federal law enforcement to provide the necessary tools and authority to prevent terrorism. Yet, I am mindful that an appropriate balance between individual rights guaranteed in the Constitution and the needs of law enforcement must be achieved as we meet our responsibility. The American people appropriately look to their government to maintain a peaceable society but do not want law enforcement to stray into the private lives of law-abiding citizens. The balance is to provide reasonable authority to law enforcement to investigate and prevent terrorism while respecting the rights of the American people to form groups, gather and engage in dialog even when that dialog involves harsh antigovernment rhetoric. Mr. President, it is my belief that this conference report will enhance law enforcement capabilities to combat terrorism while respecting our cherished rights under the Constitution. This legislation includes provisions to increase penalties for conspiracies involving explosives and the unauthorized use of explosives, enhance our ability to remove and exclude alien terrorists from U.S. territory, provide private rights of action against foreign countries who commit terrorist acts, prohibit assistance to countries that aid terrorist states financially or with military equipment, and enhance prohibitions on the use of weapons of mass destruction. Also, there are a number of other measures designed to combat terrorism which were included and detailed earlier by the able chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch. Clearly, one of the most important sections included in the conference report is language designed to curb the abuse of habeas corpus appeals. In fact, we heard from families of the Oklahoma bombing victims who demand that habeas reform be included to make this a truly successful bill. Mr. President, for years, as both chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have worked for reform of habeas corpus appeals. The habeas appellate process has become little more than a stalling tactic used by death row inmates to avoid punishment for their crimes. Unfortunately, the present system of habeas corpus review has become a game of endless litigation where the question is no longer whether the defendant is innocent or guilty of murder, but whether a prisoner can persuade a Federal court to find some kind of technical error to unduly delay justice. As it stands, the habeas process provides the death row inmate with almost inexhaustible opportunities to avoid justice. This is simply wrong. In my home State of South Carolina, there are over 60 prisoners on death row. One has been on death row for 18 years. Two others were sentenced to death in 1980 for a murder they committed in 1977. These two men, half brothers, went into a service station in Red Bank, SC, and murdered Ralph Studemeyer as his son helplessly watched. One man stabbed Mr. Studemeyer and the other shot him. It was a brutal murder and although convicted and sentenced to death these two murderers have been on death row for 15 years and continue to sit awaiting execution. The habeas reform provisions in this legislation will significantly reduce the delays in carrying out executions without unduly limiting the right of access to the Federal courts. This language will effectively reduce the filing of repetitive habeas corpus petitions which delays justice and undermines the deterrent value of the death penalty. Under our proposal, if adopted, death sentences will be carried out in most cases within 2 years of final State court action. This is in stark contrast to death sentences carried out in 1993 which, on average, were carried out over 9 years after the most recent sentencing date. Mr. President, the current habeas system has robbed the State criminal justice system of any sense of finality and prolongs the pain and agony faced by the families of murder victims. Our habeas reform proposal is badly needed to restore public confidence and ensure accountability to America's criminal justice system. We have a significant opportunity here to fight terrorism and provide certainty of punishment in our criminal justice system. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution clearly spells out the highest ideals of our system of government--one of which is to ``insure domestic tranquility.'' The American people have a right to be safe in their homes and communities. I am confident that this antiterrorism legislation will provide valuable assistance to our Nation's law enforcement in their dedicated efforts to uphold law and order. I yield the floor. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. THURMOND

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, by request, for myself and the senior Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn], I introduce, for appropriate reference, a bill to make various changes to laws affecting the management and operations of the Department of Defense, and for other purposes. I ask unanimous consent that a letter of transmittal requesting consideration of the legislation and a section-by-section analysis explaining its purpose be printed in the Record.